Miscellaneous Documents

Miscellaneous Documents

Miscellaneous Documents

Claim over Laddakh

(English translation of the Persian text of the treaty signed at Leh on second of Asuj 1899 Bikrami - September 1842 - between the Government of Maharajah Gulab Singh and the Government of Tibet.)

Whereas we the Officer, of the Lhasa country, viz., firstly, Kalon Surkhan, and secondly, Depon Pishi, commander of the forces of the Empire of China, on the one hand and Dewan Hari Chand and Wazir Ratanu, on behalf of Maharajah Gulab Singh, on the other, agree together and swear before God that the friendship between Maharajah Gulab Singh and the Emperor of China and the Lama Guru Sahib Lassawalla will be kept and observed till eternity: no disregard will be shown to anything agreed upon in the presence of God; and we will respect the boundary of Laddakh and the countries bordering on it as fixed since olden times. We will carry on the trade in Shawl, Pasham and Tea as before by way of Laddakh; and if anyone of the Shri Maharajah's enemies comes to our territories and says anything against the Rajah, we will not listen to him, and will not allow him to remain in our country, and whatever traders come from Laddakh shall experience no difficulty from our side. We will not act otherwise but in the same manner as it has been prescribed in this meeting regarding the fixing of the Laddakh frontier and the keeping open of the road for the traffic in Shawl, Pasham and Tea. We will observe our pledge to God, Gaitri and Pasi, Wazir Mian Khushal Chu is witness.

Written on the second day of Asuj 1899 (September, 1842)

The Tibetan version of the treaty

Kalon Surkhan and investigating officer Depon Pishi on behalf of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his officials, and Shri Khalsaji Absarani, Shri Maharajah, Lala Golana, the representative of Khashur Shag Golam Mohammed through an interpreter, Amirshah (on behalf of Gulab Singh) have arrived at Laddakh and discussed the terms of the peace treaty. In the first place the two contracting parties have decided to sink all past differences and ill-feeling and to consider the friendship and unity between the two kings re-established for ever. This peace treaty between Shri Maharajah Gulab Singh and Shri Guru Lama of Lhasa has been restored and there will be no cause for enmity in future in the two nations regarding their respective frontiers. Shri Maharajah Sahib has declared, invoking God as his witness, that he will not deviate from the terms of the agreement. It is agreed that the two brother kings of Laddakh and the Queen shall remain peacefully in Laddakh and shall not indulge in any intrigue, besides trying to promote the friendly relations between the two nations. The Laddakhis shall send the annual tribute to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his Ministers unfailingly as heretofore and the Shri Maharajah Sahib will not interfere with this arrangement. No restriction shall be laid on the mutual export of commodities e.g., tea, piece goods, etc. and trading shall be allowed according to the old established custom. The Laddakhis shall supply the Tibetan Government traders with the usual transport animals and arrange for their accommodation as heretofore, and the Tibetans will also do the same to the Laddakhis who come to Tibet with the annual tribute. It is agreed that no trouble will be occasioned to the Tibetan Government by the Laddakhis. We invoke God to bear witness to this agreement whereby the friendly relations between Shri Maharajah Sahib and the Lhasa Government shall continue as between members of the same family. This is signed on the second day of the month of Assuj, year 1899.

Indian Complaint to the Security Council

The Government of India have instructed me to transmit to you the following telegraphic communication:

"1. Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north-west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders which led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self-defence, to enter Pakistan territory, in order to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace.

"2. From the middle of September 1947, the Government of India had received reports of the infiltration of armed raiders into the western parts of Jammu province of Jammu and Kashmir State; Jammu adjoins West Punjab, which is a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. These raiders had done a great deal of damage in that area and taken possession of part of the territory of the State. On 24 October, the Government of India heard of a major raid from the Frontier Province of the Dominion of Pakistan into the Valley of Kashmir. Some two thousand or more fully armed and equipped men came in motor transport, crossed over to the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, sacked the town of Muzaffarabad, killing many people and proceeded along the Jhelum Valley road towards Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir State. Intermediate towns and villages were sacked and burnt, and many people killed. These raiders were stopped by Kashmir State troops near Uri, a town some fifty miles from Srinagar, for some time, but the invaders got around them and burnt the power house at Mahora, which supplied electricity to the whole of Kashmir.

"3. The position, on the morning of 26 October, was that these raiders had been held by Kashmir State troops and part of the civil population, who had been armed, at a town called Baramulla. Beyond Baramulla there was no major obstruction up to Srinagar. There was immediate danger of these raiders reaching Srinagar, destroying and massacring large numbers of people, both Hindus and Muslims. The State troops were spread out all over the State and most of them were deployed along the western border of Jammu province. They had been split up into small isolated groups and were incapable of offering effective resistance to the raiders. Most of the State officials had left the threatened areas and the civil administration had ceased to function. All that stood between Srinagar and the fate which had overtaken the places en route followed by the raiders was the determination of the inhabitants of Srinagar, of all communities, and practically without arms, to defend themselves. At this time Srinagar had also a large population of Hindu and Sikh refugees who had fled there from West Punjab owing to communal disturbances in that area. There was little doubt that these refugees would be massacred if the raiders reached Srinagar.

"4. Immediately after the raids into Jammu and Kashmir State commenced, approaches were informally made to the Government of India for the aeceptance of the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion. (It might be explained in parenthesis that Jammu and Kashmir from a State whose ruler, prior to the transfer of power by the United Kingdom to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, had been in treaty relations with the British Crown, which controlled its foreign relations ceased with the transfer of power on 15 August last, and Jammu and Kashmir like other States acquired the right to accede to either Dominion.)

"5. Events moved with great rapidity, and the threat to the Valley of Kashmir became grave. On 26 October, the ruler of the State, His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, appealed urgently to the Government of India for military help. He also requested that the Jammu and Kashmir State should be allowed to accede to the Indian Dominion. An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the largest popular organization in Kashmir, the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. The Conference further strongly supported the request for the State's accession to the Indian Dominion. The Government of India were thus approached not only officially by the State authorities, but also on behalf of the people of Kashmir, both for military aid and for the accession of the State to India.

"6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it. But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State's immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

"7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:  

"(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs or its external relations; 

"(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the Dominion of India made India really responsible for the defence of the State.

"8. The intervention of the Government of India resulted in saving Srinagar. The raiders were driven back from Baramulla to Uri and are held there by Indian troops. Nearly 19,000 raiders face the Dominion forces in this area. Since operations in the Valley of Kashmir started, pressure by the raiders against the western, and south-western border of Jammu and Kashmir State had been intensified. Exact figures are not available. It is understood, however, that nearly 15,000 raiders are operating against this part of the State. State troops are besieged in certain areas. Incursions by the raiders into the State territory, involving murder, arson, loot, and the abduction of women continue. The booty is collected and carried over to the tribal areas to serve as an inducement to the further recruitment of tribesmen to the ranks of the raiders. In addition to those actively participating in the raid, tribesmen and others, estimated at 100,000 have been collected in different places in the districts of West Punjab bordering Jammu and Kashmir State, and many of them are receiving military training under Pakistani nationals, including officers of the Pakistan Army. They are looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped, and transported to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military and civil.

"9. As already stated, the raiders who entered the Kashmir Valley in October came mainly from the tribal areas to the north-west of Pakistan and, in order to reach Kashmir, passed through Pakistan territory. The raids along the south-west border of the State, which had preceded the invasion of the valley proper, had actually been conducted from Pakistan territory, and Pakistan nationals had taken part in them. This process of transmission across Pakistan territory and untilisation of that territory as a base of operations against Jammu and Kashmir State continues. Recently, military operations against the western and south-western borders of the State have been intensified, and the attackers consist of nationals of Pakistan as well as tribesmen. These invaders are armed with modern weapons, including mortars and medium machine-guns, wear the battle dress of regular soldiers and, in recent engagements, have fought in regular battle formation and are using the tactics of modern warfare. Man-pack wireless sets are in regular use and even mark V mines have been employed. For their transport the invaders have all along used motor vehicles. They are undoubtedly being trained and to some extent led by regular officers of the Pakistan Army. Their rations and other supplies are obtained from Pakistan territory.

"10. These facts point indisputably to the conclusion  

"(a) that the invaders are allowed transit across Pakistan territory;  

"(b) that they are allowed to use Pakistan territory as a base of operations; 

"(c) that they include Pakistan nationals;

"(d) that they draw much of their military equipment, transportation, and supplies (including petrol) from Pakistan; and

"(e) that Pakistan officers are training, guiding, and otherwise actively helping them.

"There is no source other than Pakistan from which they could obtain such quantities of modern military equipment, training or guidance. More than once, the Government of India had asked the Pakistan Government to deny to the invaders facilities which constitute an act of aggression and hostility against India, but without any response. The last occasion on which this request was made was on 22 December, when the Prime Minister of India handed over personally to the Prime Minister of Pakistan a letter in which the various forms of aid given by Pakistan to the invaders were briefly recounted and the Government of Pakistan were asked to put an end to such aid promptly; no reply to this letter has yet been received in spite of a telegraphic reminder sent on 26 December.

"11. It should be clear from the foregoing recital that the Government of Pakistan are unwilling to stop the assistance in material and men which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan territory and from Pakistan nationals, including Pakistan Government personnel, both military and civil. This attitude is not only un-neutral, but constitutes active aggression against India, of which the State of Jammu and Kashmir forms a part.

"12. The Government of India have exerted persuasion and exercised patience to bring about a change in the attitude of Pakistan. But they have failed, and are in consequence confronted with a situation in which their defence of Jammu and Kashmir State is hampered and their measures to drive the invaders from the territory of the State are greatly impeded by the support which the raiders derive from Pakistan. The invaders are still on the soil of Jammu and Kashmir and the inhabitants of the States are exposed to all the atrocities of which a barbarous foe is capable. The presence, in large numbers, of invaders in those portions of Pakistan territory which adjoin parts of Indian territory other than Jammu and Kashmir State is a menace to the rest of India. Indefinite continuance of the present operations prolongs the agony of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, is a drain on India's resources and a constant threat to the maintenance of peace between India and Pakistan. The Government of India have no option, therefore, but to take more effective military action in order to rid Jammu and Kashmir State of the invader.

"13. In order that the objective of expelling the invader from Indian territory and preventing him from launching attacks should be quickly achieved, Indian troops would have to enter Pakistan territory; only thus could the invader be denied the use of bases and cut off from his sources of supplies and reinforcements in Pakistan. Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the Government of India are entitled, under international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders. However, as such action might involve armed conflict with Pakistan, the Government of India, ever anxious to proceed according to the principles and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, desire to report the situation to the Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter. They feel justified in requesting the Security Council to ask the Government of Pakistan.

"(1) to prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military and civil from participating or assisting in the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir State;  

"(2) to call upon other Pakistani nationals to desist from taking any part in the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir State;  

"(3) to deny to the invaders: (a) access to any use of its territory for operations against Kashmir, (b) military and other supplies, (c) all other kinds of aid that might tend to prolong the present struggle.

"14. The Government of India would stress the special urgency of the Security Council taking immediate action on their request. They desire to add that military operations in the invaded areas have, in the past few days, been developing so rapidly that they must, in self-defence, reserve to themselves the freedom to take, at any time when it may become necessary, such military action as they may consider the situation requires.

"15. The Government of India deeply regret that a serious crisis should have been reached in their relation with Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan a neighbour but, in spite of the recent separation, India and Pakistan have many ties and many common interests. India desires nothing more earnestly than to live with her neighbour-State on terms of close and lasting friendship. Peace is to the interest of both States; indeed to the interests of the world. The Government of India's approach to the Security Council is inspired by the sincere hope that, through the prompt action of the Council, peace may be preserved.

"16. The text of this reference to the Security Council is being telegraphed to the "Government of Pakistan."

Text of Memorandum submitted by 14 Muslim leaders of India to Dr. Frank P. Graham, United Nations Representative

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of the Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well-intentioned, on the interests and well- being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.

Supporters of the idea of Pakistan, before this subcontinent was partitioned, discouraged any attempt to define Pakistan clearly and did little to anticipate the conflicting problems which were bound to arise as a result of the advocacy of the two-nation theory. The concept of Pakistan, therefore, became an emotional slogan with little rationale content. It never occurred to the Muslim League or its leaders that if a minority was not prepared to live with a majority on the sub- continent, how could the majority be expected to tolerate the minority.

It is, therefore, small wonder that the result of partition has been disastrous to Muslims. In undivided India, their strength lay about 100 million. Partition split up the Muslim people, confining them to the three isolated regions. Thus, Muslims number 25 million in Western Pakistan, 35 million to 40 million in India, and the rest in Eastern Pakistan. A single undivided community has been broken into three fragments, each faced with its own problems.

Pakistan was not created on a religious basis. If it had been, our fate as well as the fate of other minorities would have been settled at that time. Nor would the division of the sub- continent for reasons of religion have left large minorities in India or Pakistan.

This merely illustrates what we have said above, that the concept of Pakistan was vague, obscure, and never clearly defined, nor its likely consequences foreseen by the Muslim League, even when some of these should have been obvious.

When the partition took place, Muslims in India were left in the lurch by the Muslim League and its leaders. Most of them departed to Pakistan and a few who stayed behind stayed long enough to wind up their affairs and dispose of their property. Those who went over to Pakistan left a large number of relations and friends behind.

Having brought about a division of the country, Pakistan leaders proclaimed that they would convert Pakistan into a land where people would live a life according to the tenets of Islam. This created nervousness and alarm among the minorities living in Pakistan. Not satisfied with this, Pakistan went further and announced again and again their determination to protect and safeguard the interests of Muslims in India. This naturally aroused suspicion amongst the Hindus against us and our loyalty to India was questioned.

Pakistan had made our position weaker by driving out Hindus from Western Pakistan in utter disregard of the consequences of such a policy to us and our welfare. A similar process is in question in Eastern Pakistan from which Hindus are coming over to India in a large and large number.

If the Hindus are not welcome in Pakistan, how can we, in all fairness, expect Muslims to be welcomed in India ? Such a policy must inevitably, as the past has already shown, result in the uprooting of Muslims in this country and their migration to Pakistan where, as it became clear last year, they are no longer welcome, lest their influx should destroy Pakistan's economy.

Neither some of the Muslims who did migrate to Pakistan after partition, and following the widespread bloodshed and conflict on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border in the north- west, have been able to find a happy asylum in what they had been told would be their homeland. Consequently some of them have had to return to India, e.g Meos who are now being rehabilitated in their former areas.

If we are living honorably in India today, it is certainly not due to Pakistan which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our pooition.

The credit goes to the broadminded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion caste, creed, colour or sex.

We, therefore, feel that, tragically as Muslims were misled by the Muslim League and subsquently by Pakistan and the unnecessary suffering which we and our Hindu brethren have to go through in Pakistan and in India since partition, we must be given an opportunity to settle down to a life of tolerance and understanding to the mutual benefit of Hindus and Muslims in our country - if only Pakistan would let us do it. To us it is a matter of no smaller onsequence.

Despite continuous provocations, first from the Muslim League and since then from Pakistan, the Hindu majority in India has not thrown us or members of other minorities out of Civil Services, Armed Forces, the judiciary, trade, commerce, business and industry. There are Muslim Ministers in the Union and State cabinets, Muslim Governors, Muslim Ambassadors, representing India in foreign countries, fully enjoying the confidence of the Indian nation, Muslim members in Parliament and state legislatures, Muslim judges serving on the Supreme Court and High Courts, high-ranking officers in the Armed Foroes and the Civil services, including the police. Muslims have large landed estates, run big business and commercial houses in various parts of the country, notably in Bombay and Calcutta, have their shares in industrial production and enterprise in export and import trade. Our famous sacred shrines and places of cultural interest are mostly in India.

Not that our lot is certainly happy. We wish some of the state Governments showed a little greater sympathy to us in the field of education and employment. Nevertheless, we feel we have an honourable place in India. Under the law of the land, our religious and cultural life is protected and we shall share in the opportunities open to all citizens to ensure progress for the people of this country.

It is, therefore, clear that our interest and welfare do not coincide with Pakistan's conception of the welfare and interests of Muslims in Pakistan.

This is clear from Pakistan's attitude towards Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority of the State's people being Muslims and, secondly, on the ground, of the state being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective it has been threatening to launch "Jehad" against Kashmir in India.

It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interest of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State. In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India - a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India.

Does Pakistan seriously think that it could give us any help if such an emergency arose or that we would deserve any help thanks to its own follies ? It is incapable of providing room and livelihood to the 40 million Muslims of India, should they migrate to Pakistan. Yet its policy and action, if not changed soon, may well produce the result which it dreads.

We are convinced that India will never attack our interests. First of all, it would be contrary to the spirit animating the political movement in this country. Secondly, it would be opposed to the Constitution and to the sincere leadership of the Prime Minister. Thirdly, India by committing such a folly would be playing straight into the hands of Pakistan.

We wish we were equally convinced of the soundness of Pakistan's policy. So completely oblivious is it of our present problems and of our future that it is willing to sell us into slavery - if only it can secure Kashmir.

It ignores the fact that Muslims in Kashmir may also have a point of view of their own, that there is a democratic movement with a democratic leadership in the State, both inspired by the progress of a broad minded, secular, democratic movement in India and both naturally being in sympathy with India. Otherwise, the Muslim raiders should have been welcomed with open arms by the Muslims of the State when the invasion took place in 1947.

Persistent propaganda about "Jehad" is intended, among other things, to inflame religious passions in this country. For it would, of course, be in Pakistan's interests to promote communal rioting in India to show to Kashmiri Muslims how they can find security only in Pakistan. Such a policy, however, can only bring untold misery and suffering to India and Pakistan generally and to Indian Muslims particularly.

Pakistan never tires of asserting that it is determined to protect the interests of Muslims in Kashmir and India. Why does not Pakistan express the same concern for Pathans who are fighting for Pakhtoonistan, an independent homeland of their own ? The freedom-loving Pathans under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Dr. Khan Sahib, both nurtured in the traditions of democratic tolerance of the Indian National Congress, are being subjected to political repression of the worst possible kind by their Muslim brethren in power in Pakistan and in the NWFP. Contradictory as Pakistan's policy generally is, it is no surprise to us that while it insists on a fair and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, it denies a fair and impartial plebiscite to Pathans.

Pakistan's policy in general and her attitude towards Kashmir is particular thus tend to create conditions in this cauntry which in the long run can only bring to us Muslims widespread suffering and destruction. Its policy prevents us from settling down, from being honourable citizens of a State, free from suspicion of our fellow-countrymen and adapting ourselves to changing conditions to promote the interests and welfare of India. Its sabre-rattling interferes with its own economy and ours. It expects us to be layal to it despite its importance to give us any protection, believing at the same time that we can still claim all the rights of citizenship in a secular democracy.

In the event of a war, it is extremely doubtful whether it will be able to protect the Muslims of East Bengal who are completely cut off from Western Pakistan. Are the Muslims of India and Eastern Pakistan who sacrifice themselves completely to enable the 25 million Muslims in Western Pakistan to embark upon mad, self-destructive and adventures?

We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan's policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.

Dr. Zakir Hussain 
(Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)

Sir Sultan Ahmed 
(Former Member of Governor General's Executive Council)

Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan 
(Nawab of Chhatari, former acting 
Governor of United Provinces and 
Prime Minister of Hyderabad)

Sir Mohd. Usman 
(Former member of Governor 
General's Executive council and 
acting Governor of Madras)

Sir Iqbal Ahmed 
(Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)

Sir Fazal Rahimtoola 
(Former Sheriff of Bombay)

Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P. 
Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.

Nawab Zain Yar Jung 
(Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)

A.K. Kawaja 
(Former President of Muslim Majlis)

T.M. Zarif 
(General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)

Reproduced from: 
Converted Kashmir - Memorial of Mistakes 
A Bitter Saga of Religious Conversion 
Author: Narender Sehgal 
Utpal Publications, 1994

U. N. Resolution

U. N. Resolution

Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement

Below is the text of the Sino-Pak Border agreement 1963 through which Pakistan illegally ceded 1/3rd of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir to China.

The Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of Pakistan;

HAVING agreed, with a view to ensuring the prevailing peace and tranquility on the border, to formally delimit and demarcate the boundary between China’s Sinking and the contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan, in a spirit of fairness, reasonableness, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, and on the basis of the ten principles as enunciated in the Bandung conference.

Being convinced that this would not only give full expression to the desire of the people of China and Pakistan for the development of good neighbourly and friendly relations, but also help safeguard Asian and world peace. 
Have resolved for this purpose to conclude the present agreement and have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries the following. 
For the Government of the People’s Republic of China; Chen Yi, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

For the Government of the Pakistan Zulfikar Bhutto, Minister of External Affairs. 
Who, having mutually examined their full powers and found them to be in good and due form have agreed upon following: 

Article 1

In view of the fact that the boundary between China’s Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan has never been formally delimited, two parties agree to delimit it on the basis of the traditional customary boundary line including features and in a spirit of equality, mutual benefit and friendly cooperation. 

Article 2

In accordance with the principle expounded in Article 1 of the present agreement, the two parties have fixed as follows the alignment of the entire boundary line between China’s Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan.

1) Commencing from its north western extremity at height 5,630 metres (a peak the reference coordinates of which are approximately longitude 74 degrees 34 minutes east and latitude 37 degrees 3 minutes north), the boundary line runs generally eastward and then South-eastward strictly along the main watershed between the tributaries of the Tashkurgan river of the Tarim river system on the one hand on the tributes of the Hunza river of the Indus river system on the other hand, passing through the Kilik Daban (Dawan), the Mintake Daban (pass), the Kharchanai Daban (named on the Chinese map only), the Mutsgila Daban (named on the Chinese map only) and the Parpik Pass (named on the Pakistan map only) and reaches the Khunjerab (Yutr Daban (Pass).

2) After passing through the Kunjerab (Yutr) Daban (pass) the boundary line runs generally southward along the above-mentioned main watershed upto a mountain-top south of the Daban (pass), where it leaves the main watershed to follow the crest of a spur lying generally in a south-easterly direction, which is the watershed between the Akjilga river ( a nameless corresponding river on the Pakistan map) on the one hand, and the Taghumbash (Oprang) river and the Koliman Su (Orang Jilga) on the other hand. According to the map of the Chinese side, the boundary line, after leaving the south-eastern extremity of the spur, runs along a small section of the middle line of the bed of the Koliman Su to reach its confluence with the Elechin river. According to the map of the Pakistan side, the boundary line, after leaving the south-eastern extremity of this spur, reaches the sharp bend of the Shaksgam of Muztagh river.

3) From the aforesaid point, the boundary lines runs up the Kelechin river (Shaksgam or Muztagh river) along the middle line of its bed its confluence (reference coordinates approximately longitude 76 degrees 2 minutes east and latitude 36 degrees 26 minutes north) with the Shorbulak Daria (Shimshal river or Braldu river).

4) From the confluence of the aforesaid two rivers, the boundary line, according to the map of the Chinese side, ascends the crest of a spur and runs along it to join the Karakoram range main watershed at a mountain-top (reference coordinates approximately longitude 75 degrees 54 minutes east and latitude 36 degrees 15 minutes north) which on this map is shown as belonging to the Shorgulak mountain. According to the map of the Pakistan side, the boundary line from the confluence of the above mentioned two river ascends the crest of a corresponding spur and runs along it, passing through height 6.520 meters (21,390 feet) till it joins the Karakoram range main watershed at a peak (reference coordinates approximately longitude 75 degrees 57 minutes east and latitude 36 degrees 3 minutes north).

5) Thence, the boundary line, running generally south-ward and then eastward strictly follows the Karakoram range main watershed which separates the Tarim river drainage system from the Indus river drainage system, passing through the east Mustagh pass (Muztagh pass), the top of the Chogri peak (K-2) the top of the broad peak, the top of the Gasherbrum mountain (8,068), the Indirakoli pass (names of the Chinese maps only) and the top of the Teramn Kankri peak, and reaches its south-eastern extremity at the Karakoram pass. Then alignment of the entire boundary line as described in section one of this article, has been drawn on the one million scale map of the Pakistan side in English which are signed and attached to the present agreement. In view of the fact that the maps of the two sides are not fully identical in their representation of topographical features the two parties have agreed that the actual features on the ground shall prevail, so far as the location and alignment of the boundary described in section one is concerned, and that they will be determined as far as possible by doing survey on the ground. 

Article 3

The two parties have agreed that:

i) Wherever the boundary follows a river, the middle line of the river bed shall be the boundary line; and that

ii) Wherever the boundary passes through a deban (pass) the water-parting line thereof shall be the boundary line. 

Article 4

One the two parties have agreed to set up, as soon as possible, a joint boundary demarcation commission. Each side will appoint a chairman, one or more members and a certain number of advisers and technical staff. The joint boundary demarcation commission is charged with the responsibility in accordance with the provisions of the present agreement, to hold concrete discussions on and carry out the following tasks jointly.

1) To conduct necessary surveys of the boundary area on the ground, as stated in Article 2 of the present agreement so as to set up boundary markers at places considered to be appropriate by the two parties and to delineate the boundary line of the jointly prepared accurate maps.

To draft a protocol setting forth in detail the alignment of the entire boundary line and the location of all the boundary markers and prepare and get printed detailed maps, to be attached to the protocol, with the boundary line and the location of the boundary markers shown on them.

2) The aforesaid protocol, upon being signed by representatives of the governments of the two countries, shall become an annex to the present agreement, and the detailed maps shall replace the maps attached to the present agreement.

3) Upon the conclusion of the above-mentioned protocol, the tasks of the joint boundary demarcation commission shall be terminated. 

Article 5

The two parties have agreed that any dispute concerning the boundary which may arise after the delimitation of boundary line actually existing between the two countries shall be settled peacefully by the two parties through friendly consultations. 

Article 6

The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the boundary as described in Article. Two of the present agreement, so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement, provided that in the event of the sovereign authority being Pakistan, the provisions of the present agreement and of the aforesaid protocol shall be maintained in the formal boundary treaty to be signed between the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan. 

Article 7

The present agreement shall come into force on the data of its signature. 
Done in duplicate in Peking on the second day of March 1963, in the Chinese and English languages, both side being equally authentic.

Simla Agreement

1. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan signing the Shimla Agreement. 
The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan  
signing the Shimla Agreement.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries; 
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance of encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations; 
(iii) That the prerequisite for reconciliation, good neighborliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit; 
(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means; 
(v) That there shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;
(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

2. Both Governments will take steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.

3. In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that:

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights. 
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country. 
(iii) Trade and cooperation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible. 
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.

In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

4. In order to initiate the process of establishment of durable peace, both the Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border. 
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line. 
(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.

5. This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of ratification are exchanged.

6. Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian interests, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations. 

(Indira Gandhi
Prime Minister  
Republic of India 
Simla, the 2nd July, 1972

(Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Letter written by a former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Jagmohan, to the Former Prime Minister and the President Congress, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi

Dear Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

You have virtually forced me to write this open letterto you. For, all along, I have persistently tried to keep myself away from party politics and to use whatever little talent and energy I might have to do some creative and constructive work, as was done recently in regard to the management and improvement of Mata Vaishno Devi shrine complex and to help in bringing about a sort of cultural renaissance without which our fast decaying institutions cannot be nursed back to health. At the moment, the nobler purposes of these institutions, be they in the sphere of executive, legislature or judiciary etc. have been sapped and the soul of justice and truth sucked out of them by the politics of expediency.

You and your friends like Dr. Farooq Abdullah are, however, bent upon painting a false picture before the nation in regard to Kashmir. Your senior party men like Shiv Shankar and N.K.P. Salve have, apparently at your behest, been using the forum of the Parliament for building an atmosphere of prejudice against me. The former raked up a fourteen-year old incident of Turkman Gate and the latter a press interview an interview that I never gave to hurl a barrage of accusations of communalism against my person. Mani Shankar Iyer, too, has been dipping his poisonous darts in the columns of some magazines. I, however, chose to suffer in silence all the slings and arrows of this outrageous armoury of disinformations. Only rarely did I try to correct gross distortions by sending letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. My intention was to remain content with a book, an academic and historic venture which, I believed, I owed to the nation and to history.

But the other day some friends showed to me press clippings of your comments in the election meetings in Rajasthan.

That, I thought, was the limit. I realised that, unless I checked your intentional distortions, you would spread false impression about me throughout the country during the course of your election campaign.

WARNING SIGNALS: Need I remind you that from the beginning of 1988, I had started sending "Warning Signals" to you about the gathering storm in Kashmir ? But you and the power wielders around you had neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the vision, to see these signals. They were so clear, so pointed, that to ignore them was to commit sins of true historical proportions.

To recapitulate and to serve as illustrations, I would refer to a few of these signals. In August 1988, after analysing the current and undercurrents, I had summed up the position thus: "The drum-beater of parochialism and fundamentalism are working overtime. Subversion is on the increase. The shadows of events from across the border are lengthening. Lethal weapons have come in. More may be on the way". In April 1989, I had desperately pleaded for immediate action I said: "The situation is fast deteriorating. It has almost reached a point of no return. For the last five days, there have been large-scale violence, arson, firing, hartals, casualties and what not. Things have truly fallen apart. Talking of the Irish crisis, British Prime Minister Disraeli had said: "It is potatoes one day and Pope the next". Similar is the present position in Kashmir. Yesterday, it was Maqbool Bhat; today it is Satanic Verses; Tomorrow it will be repression day and the day after it will be something else. The Chief Minister stands isolated. He has already fallen-politically as well as administratively; perhaps, only constitutional rites remain to be performed. His clutches are too soiled and rickety to support him. Personal aberrations have also eroded his public standing. The situation calls for effective intervention. Today may be timely, tomorrow may be too late". Again, in May, I expressed my growing anxiety: 'What is still more worrying is that every victory of subversionists is swelling their ranks, and the animosity is being diverted against the central authorities". But you chose not to do anything. Your inaction was mistifying. Equally mistifying was your reaction to my appointment for the second term. How could I suddenly become cammunal, anti-muslim and what not ?

When I resigned in July 1989, there was no rancour. You wanted me to fight, as your party candidate, election for the South Delhi Lok Sabha seat. Since I had general revolusion for the type of politics which out country had, by and large, come to breed, I declined the offer. If you had any serious reservation about my accepting the offer of J and K Governorship for the second term, you could have adopted the straight forward course and apprised me of your views. I would have thought twice before going into a situation which had virtually reached a point of no return. There would have been no need for you to resort to false accusations.

May be you do not consider truth and consistency as virtues. May be you believe that the words inscribed on our national emblem - Satyameva Jayate - are mere words without meaning and significance for motivating the nation to proceed in the right direction and build a true and just India by true and just means. Perhaps power is all that matters to you - power by whichever means and at whatever cost.

REALITY: In regard to the conditions prevailing before and after my arrival on the scene, you and your collaborators have been perverting reality. The truth is that before the imposition of Governor's rule on January 19, 1990, there was a total mental surrender. Even prior to the day (December 8, 1989) of Dr. Rubaiye Sayeed's kidnapping, when the eagle of terrorism swooped the state with full fury, 1600 violent incidents, including 351 bomb blasts had taken place in eleven months. Then between January 1 and January 19, 1990, there were as many as 319 violent acts - 21 armed attacks, 114 bomb blasts, 112 arsons, and 72 incidents of mob violence.

You, perhaps, never cared to know that all the components of the power structure had been virtually taken over by the subversives. For example, when Shabir Ahmed Shah was arrested in September 1989, on the Intelligence Bureau's tip- off, Srinagar Deputy Commissioner flatly refused to sign the warrant of detention. Anantnag Deputy Commissioner adopted the same attitude. The Advocate-General did not appear before the Court to represent the state case. He tried to pass on the responsibility to the Additional Advocate General and the Government council. They, too, did not appear.

Do you not remember what happened on the day of Lok Sabha poll in November 22, 1989 ? In a translating gesture, TV sets were placed near some of the polling booths with placards reading "anyone who will cast his vote will get this". No one in the administration of Dr. Farooq Abdullah took any step to remove such symbols of defiance if authority.

Let me remind you that Sopore is the hometown of Gulam Rasool Kar, who was at that time a Cabinet Minister in the State Government. It is also the hometown of the Chairman of the Legislative Council, Habibullah, and also of the former National Conference MP and Cabinet Minister, Abdul Shah Vakil. Yet only five votes were cast in Sopore town. In Pattan, an area supposedly under the influence of Iftikar Hussain Ansari, the then Congress (I) Minister, not a single vote was cast. Such was the commitment and standing of your leaders and collaborators in the State.

And you still thought that subversion and terrorism could be fought with such political and administrative intruments.

Around that point of time, when the police set-up was getting rapidly demoralised, when intelligence was fast drying up, when inflitration in services was bringing stories of subversives plan like TOPAC, your protage, Dr. Farooq Abdullah was either going abroad or releasing 70, hardcore and highly motivated torrosists who were trained in the handling of dangerous weapons, who had contacts at the highest level in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, who knew all the devious routes of going to and returning from Pakistan and whose detention had been approved by the three member advisory board presided over by the Chief Justice. Their simultaneous release enabled them to occupy key positions in the network of subversion and terrorism and to complete the chain which took them again to Pakistan to bring arms to indulge in killings and kidnappings and other acts of terrorism. For example, one of the released persons, Mohd. Daud Khan of Ganderbal, became the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of a terrorist outfit, Al-Bakar, and took a leading part in organising a force of 2,500 Kashmiri Youths. Who is to be blamed for all the heinous crimes subsequet}y committed by these released 70 terrorists ? I would leave this question answered by the people to whom you are talking about the "Jagmohan Factor".

The truth, supported by preponderence of evidence, is that before January 19, 1990, the terrorist had become the real ruler. The ground had been yielded to him to such an extent that dominated the public mind. He could virtually swim like a fish in the sea. Would it matter if the sea was subsequently surrounded ?

LABELLING ANTI-MUSLIM: In your attempt to hide all your sins of omission and commission in Kashmir and as a part of your small politics which can not go beyond dividing people and creating vote banks, you took special pains to demolish all regards and respects which the Kashmiri masses, including the Muslim youth, had developed for me during my first term from April 26,1984, to July 12,1989. Against all facts, unassailable evidence, and your own precious pronouncements, you started me labelling me as anti-Muslim.

May I, in this connection, also invite your attention to three of the important suggestions made in my book, Rebuild- ing Shahjahanabad: The Walled City of Delhi. One pertained to the creation of the green velvet between Jama Masjid and Red Fort; the second to the construction of a road linking Parliament House with the Jama Masjid complex, and the third to the setting up of a second Shahajhanabad in the Mata Sundari road-Minto road complex, reflecting the synthetic culture of the city, its traditional as well as its modern texture. Could such suggestions I ask you, come of an anti-Muslim mind ?

FORUM OF PARLIAMENT: How you and your associates use the fonum of Parliament undermine my standing amongst the Kashmiri Muslims, was evident from what N.KP. Salve, MP ?, did in the Rajya Sabha on May 25, 1990.

Referring to the so called interview to the Bombay Weekly, THE CURRENT - an interview which I never gave - Salve chose wholly unjustified expressions; "There was a patent and palpable attitude if very disconcerting communal bias and, therefore, he (Governor) was happy under the garb of eliminating the terrorist, the saboteurs and the culprits, in eliminating the whole community as it were; now the Governor has himself given profuse and unabashed vent to his malicious malignity, hate and extreme dislike, branding every member of a particular community as a militant".

I know Salve. I do not think, if left to himself, he would have done what he did. Clearly, he was goaded to say something which was against his training and background. But the elementary precaution which any jurist, at least a jurist of Salve's imminence, would have taken, was to first check up whether any such interview weekly had been given by me, and if so, whether the remarks attributed to me were actually made. The unseemly haste was itself revealing. The issue was raised on May 25, while the weekly was dated May 26 June 2, 1990. You yourself rushed a let to the President on May 25, on the basis ofthe interview that in reality did not exist. You explained that V.P. Singh had appointed a person with "Rabid Communalist Opinion as Governor. You also got your letter widely published on May 25 itself.

Since your party men did not allow me to have my say in the Rajya Sabha, even when an opportunity came my way to speak on the subject, I was left with no other option but to file a 20 Lakhs damage suit against the Current Weekly in the Delhi High Court. The case may take a long time and I may donate the damages, if and when awarded, to charity, but I intend sparing no effort to expose all those who have played dirty roles in the disinformation-drama.

ARTICLE-370: You created a scene on March 7, 1990, at the time of the visit of the All Party Committee to Srinagar, and made it a point to convey to the people in 1986 I wanted to have Article 370 abrogated. At that critical juncture, when I was fighting the forces of terrorism with my back to the wall beginning to turn the corner after frustrating the sinister designs of the subversives from January 26, 1990 onwards, you thought it appropriate to cause hostility against me by tearing the facts out of context. Whether this act of yours was responsible or irresponsible, I would leave to the nation to decide.

What I had really pointed out in August-September 1986 was: 'Article 370 is nothing but a breeding ground for the parasites at the heart of the paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the "power elites". It fans the ego of the new sultans, in essence, it creates a land without justice, a land full of crudities and contradictions. It props up politics of deception, duplicity and demagogy. It breeds the microbes of subversion. It keeps alive the unwholesome legacy of the two-nation theory. It sufficates the very idea of India and fogs the very vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. It could be an epicentre of a violent earth-quake, the tremors of which would be felt all over the country with unforeseen consequences.

I had argued, 'The fundamental aspect which has been lost sight of in the controversy for deletion or retention of Article 370 is its misues. Over the years, it has become an instrument of exploitation in the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, judiciary and bar. Apart from the politicians, the richer classes have found it aonvenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Gift Tax etc, and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to be operated in the State under the cover of Article 370. The common people are prevented from realising that Article 370 is actually keeping them impoverished and denying them justice and also their due share in the economic advancement.'

My stand was that the poor people of Kashmir had been exploited under the protective wall of Article 370 and that the correct position needed to be explained to them. I had made a number of suggestions in this regard and also in regard to the reform and reorganisation of the institutional framework. But all these were ignored. A great opportunity was missed.

Subsequent events have reinforced my views that Article 370 and its by product, the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir must go, not only because it is legally and constitutionally feasible to do so, but also because larger and more basic considerations of our past history and contemporary life require it. The Article merely facilitates the growth and continuation of corrupt oligarchies. It puts false notions in the minds of the youth. It gives rise to regional tensions and conflicts and even the autonomy assumed to be available is not attainable in practice. The distinct personality and cultural identity of Kashmir can be safeguarded without this Article. It is socially regressive and causes situations in which women lose thier right if they marry non-State subjects and persons staying for over 44 years in the State are denied elementary human and democratic rights. And, above all, it does not fit into the reality and requirement of India and its vast and varied span. What India needs today is not petty sovereignties that would sap its spirit and aspirations and turn it into small "banana-republics" in the hands of 'tin-pot dictators', but a new social, political and cultural crucible in which values of truth and rectitude, of fairness and justice, and of compassion and catholicity, are melted, purified and moulded into a vigorous and vibrant set- up which provides real freedom, real democracy and real resurgence to all.

I must also point out that when other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy, they do not mean separation of identities. They really want decentralisation and devolution of power, so that administrative and development work is done speedily and the quality of service to the people improves. In Kashmir, the demand for retaining Article 370 with all its 'pristine purity', that is, without the alleged dilution that has taken place since 1953, stems from different motivation. It emanates from a clever strategy to remain away from the mainstream, to set up a separate fiefdom, to fly a separate flag, to have a Prime Minister rather than a Chief Minister, and Sadr-i-Riyasat instead of a Governor, and to secure greater power and patronage, not for the good of the masses, not for serving the cause of peace and progress or for attaining unity amidst diversity, but for serving the interests of 'new elites', the 'new Sheikhs'.

All those aspiring to be the custadians of the vote-banks continue to say that Article 370 is a matter of faith. But they do not proceed further. They do not ask themselves: What does this faith mean? What is its rationale ? Would not bringing the State within the full framework of Indian Constitution give brighter lustre and sharper teeth to this faith and make it more just and meaningful ?

In a similar strain, expressions like 'historical necessity' and 'autonomy' are talked about. What do these mean in practice ? Does historical necessity mean that you include, on paper, Kashmir in the Indian Union by one hand at a huge cost and give it back, in practice, by another hand on the golden platter ? And what does autonomy or so called pre-1953 or pre- 1947 position imply ? Would it not amount to the Kashmiri leadership say in: 'you will send and I will spend; you will have no say even if I build a corrupt and callous oligarchy and cause a situation in which Damocles' sword of secession could be kept hanging on your head' ?

KASHMIRI PANDITS: You and the like of you have made India a country which has lost capacity to be true and just. Anyone trying to be fair is dubbed communal. The case of the Kashmiri Pandits bears eloquent testimony to this fact.

Whatever be the vicissitudes of the Kashmiri Pandits' history and whatever unkind quirks their fate might have brought to them in the past, these all pale into insigficance in companison to what is happening to them at present. The grim tragedy is compounded by the equally grim irony that one of the most intelligent subtle, versatile, and proud community of the country is being virtually reduced to extinction in free India. It is suffering not under the fanatic zeal of mediaeval Sultans like Sikander or under the tyrannical regime of Afghan Governors, but under the supposedly secular rule of leaders like you, V.P. Singh and others who unabashed search for personal and political power is symbolised by calculated disregard of the Kashmiri migrants' current miserable plight and the terrible future that stares in their eyes. And to fill their cup of pain and anguish, there are bodies like 'Committee for Initiative on Kashmir' which are over-anxious and over active to rub salt into their wounds, and to label anyone who wants to stand by them in their hour of distress as communal.

In a soft, superficial, permissive and, in many ways, cruel India which has the tragic distinction of creating over one lakh refugees from its own flesh and blood and then casting them aside like masterless cattle to fend for themselves on the busy and heartless avenues of soulless cities, chances for Kashmiri Pandits to survive as a distinct community are next to nothing. Split, scattered and deserted practically by all, they stand today all alone, looking hopelessly at a leaking, rudderless, boat at their feat and extremely rough and tumultuous sea to face before they can reach a safe shore across to plant their feet firmly on an assured future.

The deep crisis through which the Kashmiri migrants, or for that matter, the entire Kashmir, is passing is really the crisis of Indian values - the perversion, in practice, of its constitutional, political, social and moral norms. If I visited the camps of the refugees and tried to extend the firm hand of justice to a community in pain, if I instructed that, instead of cash doles, the migrant Government servants should be given leave salary, and if I conceded the demand of a widow of the person brutally killed by a terrorist, for allotment of a house on payment, I became communal, a known anti-Muslim, about whom concoted stories were planted in the press. If, on the other hand, someone falsely accused the Indian Army and the Governor's administration, if he assailed Jagmohan in particular, of giving inducements through provisions of plots and trucks, without giving particulars either of plots or of trucks, his accusations got published all over the press, his reports were flaunted in national and international forums and were copiously quoted in Parliament by the members of your party and he was labelled as secular and progressive and champion of human rights and what not. Hard Evidence about 'Jagmohan Factor'. I do not like to refer to anything that looks like indulging in self-praise. But not to let you get away with your calculated campaign of disinformation, about Jagmohan communal factor, I must invite attention to some hard evidence about what the people of the Valley actually thought about me before you and your proteges started the smear campaign on my appointment for the second term.

Your principal prop of current politics of Kashmir, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, was not to be left behind in the drive launched to create an 'anti-Muslim' image of mine. In his interview published in the Times of India of August 30, 1990, he said, "A known anti-Muslim was appointed as Governor of a Muslim majority state". How untrue, how unfair, was the propaganda, should be obvious from the fact that on November 7, 1986, at the time of his swearing-in-ceremony, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, in a public speech for which the records exist, said: "Governor Sahib, we should need you very badly. It is, indeed, amazing that such remarkable work could be done by you in a short time through an imbecile and faction-ridden bureaucracy. If today three ballot boxes are kept - one for the National Conference, one for the Congress and one for you, your ballot box would be full while the other two ballot boxes would be empty".

The misfortune of our country is that we have leaders like Dr. Farooq Abdullah who have no regard for facts or truth and whose superficiality is matched only by their unprincipled politics.

Incidentally, did it not strike you that Dr. Farooq was virtually accusing your late mother of being anti-Muslim because she was the Prime Minister when, in April 1984, a 'known anti-Muslims' was appointed for the first term, as 'Governor of a Muslim majority State" ?

Apparently in consultation with you, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, on February 15, 1990, issued a written statement to the press in Urdu in which he inter alia, said, "The Governor, in the personification of 'Hallaqu' and 'Changez Khan', is bent upon converting the valley into a vast graveyard. On account of continuous curfew since January 20, it is difficult to say how many hundreds of people have become victim of the bullets of the army and paramilitary forces, and in this general slaughter how many hundreds of houses have been destroyed. At this moment, when Kashmiris are witnessing their beloved country being converted into a vast graveyard. I appeal to the national and international upholders of humanity to intervene in Kashmir and have an internatianal inquiry made into the general slaughter of Kashmiris at the hands of army and paramilitary forces".

Here is your 'patriot' calling Kashmir "Aziz Wattan", suggesting a separate country. Here is your 'national leader' asking for an international inquiry into the general slaughter of the Kashmiris by the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. Here is your 'responsible friend' speaking about the continuous curfew for 25 days in the valley and his consequent inability to find out many 'hundreds of innocent and unarmed Kashmiris' had been massacred and how many hundreds of Kashmiri houses razed to the ground, although he knew perfectly well that there had been a number of days when there was no day- curfew, partially or wholly, and the authorities had brought out the list of casualties, about 40 upto February 16, and were daily asking the public to provide with the additional names, if they had any, so that correction in the official list could be made. Here is an erstwhile Chief Minister who did not care to explain how 'innocent and unarmed' people were ruthlessly shooting down IAF officers, BSF jawans, senior officers of the Television and Telecommunications Department and young men in the streets; and how, while inciting people through lengthy and fiery statements, he did not find a single word to condemn such brutal murders.

Is the nation not entitled to know why you have not disowned such unfortunate behaviour on the part of Dr. Farooq Abdullah? And how do you account for his recent statement as published in The Times of India of February 7, 1991: 'I directed my partymen to lie low, go across the border, get training in arms handling; do anything but not get caught by Jagmohan' ?

Stabbing me in the back at personal level, perhaps, did not matter. But by keeping the pot boiling, you your proteges prolonged the agony of Kashmir and caused many more deaths and much more destruction. The politics of unscrupulousness was brought to its lowest depth.

ROOTS: You once said, 'I do not read history; I make history'. Apparently, you do not know that those who happen to make history without reading it, usually make bad history. They cannot understand the undercurrents and the fundamental forces that really shape the course of events and determine the ultimate destiny of a nation.

In the absence of historical perspective, you and the like of you never perceived the roots and tendrils which gave rise to the current crop of separatism and subversion in Kashmir. Poisonous seeds were persistently planted in the Kashmir psyche. And these were liberally fertilised. Those of you whose obligation it was to stop these plantations and their fertilisation, were not aware of even the elementary lesson of history; to compromise with the evil was only to rear greater evil; to ignore the inconvenient reality was only to compound it; to bow before the bully was only to invite the butcher the next day.

I could cite scores of cases to support my contention. Here I would restrict myself to only two examples.

Softness and Surrender. On October 2, 1988, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday his statue was to be installed in the new High Court complex at Srinagar. The function had been announced. The Chief Justice of India, R.S. Pathak, was to do the formal installation. But a few Muslim lawyers objected. They threatened to cause disturbance at the time of the function. The Chief Minister gave in, almost willingly, to the bullying tactics. The function was cancelled.

What are the implications of what happened ? A secular Kashmir, part of a secular India, could not have, even in its highest seat of justice, a statue of the Father of the Nation, of a sage, who laid down his life for communal harmony. Who was the person spearheading the move against the installation ? It was none other than Mohd. Shafi Bhat, an advocate of the J and K High Court and an active number of the National Conference, who was later on given party ticket for Srinagar Lok Sabha seat in the elections held in November 1989 and with whom you kept warm company during your visit to Srinagar on March 7, 1990, to create as many difficulties as possible for Governor's administration.

At that time there was National Conference (F) Congress (I) Ministry in office. Such was its lack of adherence to principles, such was the character of Congressmen who formed part of the Ministry and such was its disposition to cling to power that not even a little finger was raised when the function was cancelled.

The bully's appetite could not have been whetted better. Intimidation could not have secured better results. The troublemakers could not have perceived a more casual and non- committed adversary. Was it not natural for them to nurture higher ambitions and think that more spectacular results could be achieved by deploying a more aggressive and threatening strategy ? Only a naive would believe that in the context of the Kashmir situation, softness and surrender on basic principles would not act as an invitation to terrorism and militancy.

The Union Government enacted the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. It was made applicable to all the States of the Union except J and K. Because of Article 370, concurrence of the State Government was needed for extension of this law to the State. But the same was not given. Why ? Because J and K is different what an argument for having a law which aimed at eradication of misuse of religious premises for political purposes.

Nowhere was this law needed more than in the State of J and K. Nowhere were religious places misused more than here. Nowhere were seeds of fanaticism and fundamentalism sown every Friday more assiduoulsy than from the pulpits of the mosques here. Nowhere was it preached more regularly than here that Indian democracy was un-Islamic, Indian secularism was un-Islamic and Indian socialism was un-Islamic. And yet, neither the State Government which was ruled by two supposedly secular parties, nor the Union Government took the matter seriously. What intrigued the most was that the law which was considered good for 100 million Muslims in other parts of India, was not considered good for 40 lakh Muslims of Kashmir.

What was the use of the nationalist forces ruling the country when they would not act in national interest at all, when they remained mental slaves of the politics of communalism; when they were inclined to place reliance on words and not on deeds; when they did not lead, but succumbed; when they encouraged, and not defeated, separatist elements; when, instead of building a new society strong in human and spiritual values, they did everything, wittingly or unwittingly, to repair, renovate and strengthen the old decaying and smelly sitadel of obscurantism; and when they invariably gave precedence to expediency over the basic goals and principles of our Constitution ? What could be the result of all this ? Did it require any unusual insight to understand where such fipurious forces would take us ?

I leave it to the well-wishers of the nation to consider, without any political or personal bias, a basic question. How was it that Dr. Farooq was calling me Hallaqu and Changez Khan, and you were travelling all the way to Srinagar to 'expose' me as anti-Article 370, anti-Kashmiri and anti-Muslim and, at the same time, Miss Benazir Bhutto was vowing to tear me to pieces - 'Jagmohan ko Bhag-Bhag Mohan Kar Denge' ?

There are many other facets of Kashmir's truth which lie buried underneath the heaps of disinformation and also of superficiality and shallowness. These days I am busy in an attempt to remove some of these heaps. One day, I hope, the country will acquire the true perspective of the problem. The Kashmiri masses would also realise that I was their greatest well-wisher. I wanted to save them permanently from the exploitative oligarches and also from the machinations of religious 'Czars' and forces of obscurantism.

You have already committed the sin of letting down the Bharat Mata in Kashmir. Now do not add to it another sin of letting down the other Mata also. There is, after all, some power above. Conscious of her. She may condone your negligence. But she would not condone your sin of blaming an innocent person for what were your own faults, particularly when he had been persistently reminding you of your obligations.

So far as I am concerned, I am content with my gloomy pride of having done the correct thing in Kashmir. True, I seemingly and, perhaps, temporarily, lost the goodwill of some of the locals. But I was not seeking a certificate from anyone. I had gone for the second term to do a national duty.

The country's polity and administration have assumed such a character that it has become incapable of solving from its roots, any serious problem. Elections have virtually lost all meaning. And these would continue to be meaningless until and unless Indian democracy and its constitutional structure acquires a healthy cultural base, a pure soul and soil, from which the seed of justice, truth and selfless service could sprout and blossom into a Great Tree providing shade and shelter from Kanyakumari to Kashmir. Currently, the inner light is gone, and we are being led virtually by blind men with lanterns in their hands. We stumble from one crisis to another. As a poet says:

It has happened 
and it goes on happening 
and it will happen again.

With best wishes, 
Yours sincerely,


Reproduced from: 
Converted Kashmir - Memorial of Mistakes 
A Bitter Saga of Religious Conversion 
Author: Narender Sehgal

Speech made by Pandit Fotedar on Kashmir

Debate on 7/8/1952

Pandit Fotedar (J&K)

With your permission, Sir, I rise to contribute my estimate on the speech of the Prime Minister regarding Kashmir and submit the same to the wisdom of this Parliament to be considered in a most cool, calm and calculated manner. Before I bring myself to the points raised by my hon’ble colleague Dr Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, I would like to say...

Mr Deputy-Speaker: The hon’ble member may stop a while, for a couple of minutes. There is too much of noise in the House. Order, Even the smallest noise is carried over by the mike. The hon’ble member may come to the front.

Pandit Fotedar: It is lamentably disquieting to observe that at a moment when we have got to reckon with an unscrupulous enemy to whom nothing is sacred, at a moment when the war-clouds are again threatening on the horizon, at a moment when every endeavour ought to be made by all the parties in India to consolidate their ranks and to forget their differences in order to develop our country, at a moment when our case is being discussed at the very top level at Geneva, at a moment when our Armies are facing each other, and at a moment when we are on a war path, it is most lamentable to observe that the floor of this great Parliament should be converted into an arena for the creation of fissiparous tendencies and an emotional atmosphere which after all, is not going to do good to the cause for which we stand, cannot be conducive to the development of those sacred principles for which India and Kashmir stand, of the sacred principle of secularism for which we have struggled and suffered.

It is going to do no good, but it will only help and support Pakistan and our enemies. Jinnah, during his life time, in fact after the year 1944, when he was very much maltreated in Kashmir by the Muslims for his idealogy, wanted two things about Kashmir. One was, a isolation of Kashmir from India. The second was liquidation of Abdullahism. What Jinnah failed to achieve during his life time, what the Muslim League and Pakistan failed to achieve even through aggression, what they have all along been failing to achieve in spite of their tremendous efforts to get Kashmir away from India, today I find here in this Parliament, in the name of democracy, in the name of Hinduism, in the name of Bharat, all this is being achieved for Pakistan, and a homage of hearty flattery is being paid to Mr Jinnah and his revered memory. In this connection, I quote a couplet from a Persian poet who has said:

"Dil Kay Phapholey Jal Uthay Sinay Kay Dagh Say

Is Ghar Ko Aag Lag Gai Gar Kay Chiragh Say"

This great Parliament of India which is representatives of the teeming millions, owes to the nation, and to the country as also to the rising generation to give the right type of lead to the people at the most crucial hour of our evolutionary history. At the present moment, if we fail to discharge our duties towards the people, we will go down to posterity as people having committed political suicide, while of an unsound mind. I would like to refer this great Parliament to the struggle which the Kashmiris have put in for removing exploitation for feeding the poverty-stricken people and for doing away with autocracy for the last 20 years, and in this great struggle the people of Kashmir were helped, assisted and inspired by the India nation and particularly the Congress.

They had the blessings of Mahatma Gandhi, and the guidance of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. When partition became a reality and when the tallest among us, my hon’ble friend Dr Shyama Prasad Mookherjee included, much against their wishes and under the storms and stress of circumstances bowed before the two-nation theory, there was only one place in India which stood in solitary glory and that was Kashmir which gave a challenge to the two-nation theory and also the diplomacy of the Britishers. When the two Punjabs and the whole of North India had flared up and the people indulged in activities which would degrade even the brute, and the communal tension mounted like an eruption where a human being could not recognise another human being, it was Kashmir alone which maintained communal harmony, there not even a single person was touched, although it became a sort of rendezvous for the refugees from the West Punjab and also the East Punjab.

When they passed through our State, nobody was touched and I know it for certain that nobody was touched. When our own borders flared up and Pakistan inspired Titanic hordes of medieval Barbarism were let loose on us, when the Maharaja left us not recognising his responsibility if not towards the Muslims at least towards the Hindu population, and left bag and baggage, with 85 lorry-loads of Rajputs and all his kith and kin, and his property, gold and other things, when the administrative machinery collapsed from within, and not a sentinel was to be seen anywhere, when the enemy was battering at our gates, when there were Muslims inside and Muslims outside, I would like to refer my hon’ble friend Dr Shyama Prasad Mookherjee to those three historic hectic days unparalleled in the history of the world, and put to him this question-what happened? How is it that the Muslims of Kashmir were kept back from falling into the lapse of Pakistan? What was it that prevented them from doing so? Today Sheikh Abdullah’s bona fides are being challenged and we are being called communalists and turncoats. It may be, but I would like to have the explanation, after discussing things. History does not repeat itself every time and often. It happened once, and it will go down in history in letters of gold that if there was on nation which was free from communalism under the current of India’s secularism, that was Kashmir and Kashmir alone. I would like to pose this question to my hon’ble friend: Was it the temptation of money from India? The Kashmiris were fighting for a doubtful cause. We had only one link with India, namely the air link. It is just possible that within 20 minutes, that link could have been captured. Then we would have been no more. My hon’ble friends Mr Chatterjee and Mr Deshpande would have seen that my sisters, daughters and mothers would have been sold for a pittance in the bazaars of Rawalpindi and Kisakhani.

It was not Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee or Mr Chatterjee or any Hindu stalwart that saved the chastity or my daughters and sisters in Kashmir. Sir, those days were memorable days. Those three days when the Indian soldiers had not touched the soil of Kashmir were hectic and memorable days. At that time we looked to the high sky thinking that an aeroplane would come, believing that Kashmir had always the blessings of India through the Congress. We looked to Sheikh Abdullah and the Hindus and Muslims clustered round him "Mere Kashmir Zindabad".

Those were days when any ordinary leadership would have collapsed. But then Sheikh Abdullah was there, a Muslim, why did he not go to Pakistan? Why should be come to Hindustan? There were 15 lakhs of Muslims there. And if the enemy would have got Kashmir, crossed Banihal and gone right into the heart of Jammu and reached Gurdaspur, then Gurdaspur would have been our borders, and not Uri and then your would not have had talks of Kashmir or Ladakh or Jammu very glibly as you do now. It is very easy to talk glibly of them now.

It is always very easy to be very wise after the event. But I would like to pose this question to my hon’ble friend. Why is it that Kashmir did not go to Pakistan? What kept it back from doing so? Was it the temptation of money? Was it to wreak a vengeance on Pakistan, was it madness? It was the love for secular democracy and our great experiment in the human philosophy which was going on in Kashmir for the last 20 years, it was our faith in the efficacy of the path shown by Mahatma Gandhi and in our economic programme and not the vituperations of the gravest kind, advanced by Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, it was our faith in the path shown by Gandhiji which was responsible for keeping back Kashmir from falling into the lapse of Pakistan that saved Kashmir which Kashmir has acceded to secular India and I may assure you that no amount of fulmination, no amount of intimidation or coercion will deflect us from that path which has been down to is by the Father of the Nation. Come what may, we will lay down our lives, but not leave that path of righteousness, truth and humanity.

Then I would like to refer to certain issues raised by my hon’ble friend, for whom I have great respect and regard, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee. He said some thing about giving Kashmir a special status, and very late in the day he though of it. In the year 1950, on the 25th January when you completed your constitution, you had a chapter on Transitory Provisions and Article 370 incorporated in the constitution, where you gave a special status to Kashmir. While it as said that the Congress and Panditji have always sold the conscience of Hinduism and Hindustan, I believe it was my hon’ble friend Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee who gave this special status to Kashmir, during the making of the constitution. That special status was with regard to constitution-making. Have you conceded that right to any other state?

If not, what were the special consideration and weighty reasons which compelled even a person like Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee who is so wise, so over-zealous a patriot and who seems to claim the monopoly of world’s patriotism to allow that clause to remain in the constitution? When you give me the right to make my own constitution, I become a sovereign for my own affairs. I would like to make known my own position once and for all; my position is like that of a daughter, who is a daughter in her mother’s house, but a mistress in her own, vis-a-vis the Republic of India and the Indian Constitution. It may be said that we may apply the entire Indian Constitution to Kashmir, and have all the fundamental rights. In fact, I would love such a thing.

But how is it going to constitute a solution for that great and basic position of ours, namely, that of determining the will of the people? If we do so, we would be raising a structure without completing the basis, which is the will of the people and staging Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

Whether it was right or wrong, somehow the Instrument of Accession is there. The will of the people must be ascertained. We are committed before the people. My hon’ble friend Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee referred to Hyderabad. We may have made commitments, and I do not know whether we have kept us those pledges of ours or broken them up.

But with regard to Hyderabad, there was no other party with whom we had to reckon. In the case of Kashmir, the initiative is not only with us. It is there with Pakistan, and so it is with Kashmir and the United Nations. The Kashmir question is indissolubly linked up with the world affairs today that if you have to examine very calmly and coolly the Kashmir situation, you must try to understand the present day world politics. It has become an object of international attention and importance. We talk about Jammu glibly as we do here.

Pakistan may say ‘Now I would like to have Jammu, the whole of this thing or that thing’. ‘If you indiscreetly talk like that and say ‘We would like to have Jammu and we would like to have Ladakh and so on’, you are only, indirectly though, suggesting ‘let us make a gift and present of Kashmir valley to Pakistan’. I would like to know how many Indians there are, howmany patriots there are in this country who would like to make a present of the Kashmir valley to Pakistan. I assure you that the Kashmir issue today is such a tremendous knotty and delicate subject that any indiscreet handling and any lack of proper appreciation of the basic things involved in the Kashmir affair may not only lead us into great chaos, but I may tell you it may imperil the peace not only of India and Asia, but may endanger the peace of the whole world.

Now, the hon’ble Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, of course at whose feet, I love to learn many a thing and for whom I have very great respect, who is one who should have been a great leader of a great national organisation in India, with an economic programme be the head of sectarian body which is harmful. Should we not have our economic programme, should we not have freedom from privation, freedom from want, freedom from scarcity and freedom from troubles? Sir, he said just now something about the population of Jammu. Only about five months ago, he said: ‘Why don’t you conquer and get back the territory which has been taken away by Pakistan?’ Possibly he may be knowing of a document, the aide memoir wherein India had made it clear to Lozzano, that unless four conditions were fulfilled, India was not going to be a party to any sort of negotiation or settlement.

One was the rehabilitation of 7 lakhs of refugees living in Pakistan. We have been saying it and demanding it time and again that we must get back that territory, but when it suited him, and now believing in cutting nose to spite the face he takes a somersalt and says that the population of Jammu is only 7 or 8 lakhs, the rest is with Pakistan. One should not talk hot and cold in the same breath.

Sir, I will tell you that by such things we have not been able to create a friendly atmosphere, to create that goodwill which is very much essential for achieving a most difficult thing. I do not say that the Kashmiris are not with India; Kashmirs are with India, and Kashmir is an integral part of India, but the main question is there. It is the question of ascertaining the will of the people for which you stand committed here, there and everything. I would like to make an appeal to Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee who is really a great patriot, who is very wise, who can lead us, who can guide us, that he should take an impersonal, dispassionate view of this whole thing and try to analyses and know whom this whole storm that has been created is going to help.

The second point, Sir, is this. It is most uncharitable, it is most unfair, I would say it is almost an outrage against political morality, to try to put a person to test who has been put to test at a time when he was confronted with odds, a person who stood by the side of India and by the side of Kashmir at the hour of India’s and Kashmir’s sorest trial. If we take the population point of view, wherever there was Muslim majority, that place went to Hindustan. Kashmir is the only place which is having this experiment in human philosophy and with a Muslim majority has acceded to India. Kashmir is fighting against odds in the furtherance of this ideology.

Kashmir is the only place where the Hindus and Muslims lived amicably against odds and we want Kashmir to be administered in that friendly atmosphere, and I trust our hon’ble Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee will see sense and lead us in this behalf as also in many other things.

Resolution adopted by the House (Margdarshan-91) organised by Panun Kashmir 28/12/1991 at Jammu, J&K, India

The terrorist violence which has ravaged the state of Jammu and Kashmir for the last four years is the culmination of the long secessionist movement carried on by the fundamentalist forces in Kashmir since 1947 and overtly and covertly supported by the Pakistan. Terrorism in Kashmir is a Muslim religious crusade aimed at the secession of the State from the Republic of India and its merger with Pakistan. It is founded on an ideological struggle of which the main tenets are:-

i) that Kashmir which has a majority Muslim population should become a part of Pakistan on the basis of religion;

iii\) that the rich cultural traditions of Kashmir hallowed over more than five thousand years of the history be demolished and replaced by Islamic fundamentalism; Pakistan is deeply involved in its attempts to subvert the constitutional and administrative machinery of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in order to strain and snap the relations between the State and the Republic of India. Its abetment in the terrorist violence by lending moral, political and military support is common knowledge. The terrorists operative in Jammu and Kashmir are being trained in camps raised for this purpose in Pak held Kashmir and the neighbouring states of Pakistan and then pushed into India to cause large scale anarchy, destruction, arson, murder, molestation and rape.

The Kashmiri Hindus have become the first victims of terrorism as a result of which they had to flee the place of their abode. The Hindus in Kashmir have, right from the dawn of freedom faced and fought communalism and fundamentalism. They are a part of the Vedic heartland of India and have lived in Kashmir from times immemorial. In fact, they are the original inhabitants of the Valley of Kashmir, now reduced to an ethnic minority, with a history of more than five thousand years dating back beyond the" Neelmat Era" almost contemporary to the Vedic civilizaton of India. The Hindu religious precepts have borne the message of universal peace, brotherhood and coexistence of all creeds and faiths. The Hindus of Kashmir are the progenitors of "Shakti" and Shaivite Monism and Hinyana and Sarvastvadin Budhism which spread to Central Asia, Tibet and Western China. They propounded the great Shaivite doctrine of Trika and the theory of recognition. Kalhana, Jonaraja, Praj-Bhat, Shuka and Shrivara, the great masters of history compiled the historical chronicle of Rajatarangini. The Hindu Kingdom of Kashmir reached its zenith with the ascendance of the Karkotas when Kashmir commanded respect and tribute from its neighbouring Kingdoms till the fall of Utpalas. The ascendancy of Muslim Sultans in the thirteenth century witnessed fierce religious persecution and attempts at conversion of Kashmiri Pandits who resisted it with will, and determination, prefering death to surrender.

The Kashmiri Pandits have played a major role in the liberation struggle against the British and their colonial imperatives in the State. The secularisation of the various communal movements which rocked the State in the aftermath of the growth of Muslim separatism in India was achieved, mainly due to the efforts of Kashmiri Pandits. They authored and sponsored the famous declaration of National demand in 1938, which later became the secular national movement in the state. The political movement for National self-government received its ideological content from the Kashmiri Pandits who gave the first call for self-government.

Since the independence of India and accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union, the Kashmiri Hindus have continued to fight the religious precedence as well the separatism which accompanied the rise of Muslim communalism. They were reduced to a plight of slavery, misery and servitude but they did not react against Muslim communalism as a communal minority. Inspite of the forces arraigned against them viz Muslim fundamentalists, the Muslimised State-apparatus and the secessionist group, the Hindus suffered at the stake to save the secular and democratic image of Kashmir and India. While resisting the orchestrated moves fostered by Muslim communalists inside the state and their mentors in Pakistan to Islamise the State and snatch it from the Union of India, the Hindu became the victims of communal hatred and faced hostility, ridicule and privation. The Indian leaders, on the other hand, served their petty personal interests and party objectives leaving the field open for the fundamentalists to carry out their nefarious designs. The Kashmiri Hindu was the main obstacle in the attainment of the goal of fundamentalists and was branded as the agent of the Government of India. Even a leader of the stature of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah charged them of acting as the fifth column of India. They, thus became the victims of a dangerous irony, where on the one hand they were persecuted because of their adherence to the values of secularism and democracy enshrined in the Indian Constitution and on the other hand they were jettisoned by the rulers of India.

The Hindus of Kashmir, because of their minority and almost negligible representation in the State legislature and bureaucracy, became helpless onlookers to the manouvering, manipulation and distortion of the established democratic, constitutional and legal institutions of the State which gave rise to Muslim majoritarianism. Under the system Kashmiri Hindu faced a deliberate, steady and relentless squeeze of his constitutional, political and legal rights and was forced into a slow exodus. In the process nearly three lakh Hindus have already left the Valley during the last four decades.

Muslim majoritarianism is inherently communal in nature. The Indian partition was not an accident of history nor was it contrived by the British to contain the Indian freedom movement. It was the culmination of the Muslim struggle for separate Muslim majority State where the pre-eminence of Muslim Ummah was recognised. During the last forty years of the history of Pakistan the Hindus who constituted nearly thirty percent of its population at the outset are reduced to only one percent as on today. The operative design of Muslim communalism in Kashmir has almost been similar-the  Hindus of Kashmir who formed about nine percent of the population of Kashmir in 1947 are almost wiped out of the Kashmir valley by now. As a part of the grand strategy for the attainment of the Islamic and fundamentalistic State of Kashmir, communal elements and terrorist are bent upon annihilating the Kashmiri Hindus as a result of which their exodus has been made inevitable.

The terrorist violence has taken a heavy toll of unarmed, peaceloving and tolerant Hindus of Kashmir valley. Hundreds of Hindus-men, women and children, were brutally murdered and hundreds were subjected to inhuman torture and suffering. The community was driven out of Kashmir valley by force or on the pain of death. The properties left behind by them have been looted and their houses burnt or destroyed by dynamite. Right at present a scorched-earth policy is being followed by terrorists by systematically burning the Hindu localities, Hindu houses and Hindu shrines and temples.

The Kashmir history is replete with the contribution of Kashmiri Hindus to the nation's march in general and that of Kashmir in particular. Kashmiri Hindus have served as a beacon light to the entire national polity and are the real founders of secularism and democracy in Kashmir. In the modernization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Hindus have contributed much more than their share and have imparted to the Kashmiri society its scientific, progressive and humane outlook. Throughout their history, more specifically in the modern times., they have tried their utmost  to live at peace with their Muslim compatriots. The secular facade, which Kashmir has worn all through the last forty three years, has been provided mainly by Kashmiri Hindus. They have not reacted to Muslim communalism, instead they have faced the rigours of Muslim dominance with the fervent hope that the thrust on universal education and scientific progress in the State would pave way for the free flow of democratic thought, recognition of the human rights, the genuine urges and aspirations Kashmiri Hindu minorities, religious tolerance equity and justice.

This hope is now shattered. Neither his Muslim brethren in Kashmir nor the Indian government which swears by secularism came to the rescue of Kashmiri Hindus at the time when they were being butchered and hounded out of their homes and hearths, nor at this moment when they have been uprooted and thrown into wilderness to face a life and death struggle for survival. All the constitutional guarantees for the protection of their limb, life, property, their status and dignity have been trampled with impunity. The Hindus of Kashmir, wherever they are, therefore, unequivocally declare that:-

i) With their deep and firm commitment to social unity, religious coexistence, democracy and secularism they will not accept a society which is communalised, obscurantist, intolerant and medieval. They will not submit to any authority in the State which does not recognise their right to life, equality, faith and protection against discrimination. They will not be a party to the present struggle launched against secular and democratic India.

ii) With their history of having lived and died for freedom and their open espousal of the cause of tolerance peace, amity and brotherhood between various ethnic, social and religious, groups, they cannot accept the pre-eminence and predominance of any single religious community at their cost,

iii) Having been the original inhabitants of Kashmir from ancient times and being the inheritors of a glorious cultural tradition of more than five thousand years, Kashmiri Pandits have as much right to live in Kashmir as any other religious group. Preservation of this community in its natural and historical habitat is a political necessity.

iv) The present crusade by the terrorists against Kashmiri Pandits to drive away the last remnants of this proud community from its rightful place is a shame for the secular India in particular and the world community in general. Any measure taken to rehabilitate this community outside Kashmir valley will only result in the dispersal of this community leading to its dissolution and extinction. This will be a tragedy, as the only relic of a small but distinct race with an outstanding culture will be destroyed.

v) Because of their equal rights to the land of their birth they stake their claim to be an equal party to any future deliberations in the process of normalisation and ultimate solution of Kashmir problem.

The Kashmiri Hindus, therefore, demand:

a) The establishment of a homeland for Kashmiri Hindus in the Kashmir Valley, comprising the regions of the Valley to the East and North of river Jehlum;

b) that the constitution of India be made applicable in letter and spirit in this homeland in order to ensure right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, faith, equality and rule of law;

c) that their homeland be placed under central administration with a Union Territory Status so that it evolves its own economic and political infrastructure;

d) that all the seven lakh Kashmiri Hindus, which includes those who have been driven out of Kashmir in the past and yearn to return to their homeland and those who were forced to leave on account of the terrorist violence in Kashmir, be settled in the homeland on equitable basis with dignity and honour.

Letter from Maharaja Hari Singh to Lord Mountbatten and his response

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

Maharaja Hari SinghI have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous wit h both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Government permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life ad property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State.The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Government of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. Inspite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurrences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh 
October 26, 1947

Reply from Lord Mountbatten to Maharaja Hari Singh

My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Lord MountbattenYour Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma 
October 27, 1947

Letter of the Maharaja Hari Singh to Sardar Patel

Maharaja Hari SinghSardar PatelAccording to the published Correspondence of Sardar Patel, Volume One, Maharaja Hari Singh wrote to the Sardar on January 31, 1948, a long letter giving vent to his agony. In the course of this letter, he wrote: "The military situation as you know has been quite depressing since the arrival of the Indian troops. Except the first gains in the Kashmir Valley there has been a debt balance throughout so far as achievements are concerned.

"The Indian troops arrived in the Valley on 27 October, at that time we were in possession of about 3/4th of Poonch and the whole of the Mirpur district. We had by then lost only small bits of Poonch and Muzaffarabad district. After the recapture of Baramulla and Uri, there has been a standstill. Two months have passed and the Indian troops are still at Uri. They attempted to venture to the town of Poonch and though they reached it, it was at a great cost and the road was eventually lost. In the Poonch Jagir, which was held by the state troops inch by inch, we had to withdraw and eventually lost the whole of the Jagir except the town itself, where about 40,000 people are besieged alongwith 4 battalions (3 state and 1 Indian). The situation is by no means satisfactory. I may mention that in the August disturbances, with two battalions of the state troops we cleared the whole of Poonch Jagir, peace was restored, the whole of the revenue was realised and the administration was functioning normally. It was only in the second week of October that trouble again began in Poonch and our troops resisted it till about the end of December. But as no help was given, they had eventually to fall back on Poonch town..."

He went on: "In Mirpur district, at the time when the Indian forces arrived, we are still holding Mangla and our territory along the Jehlum Canal bank, but during the past two months we have lost Mangla, Alibeg, Gurdwara, and the town of Mirpur, the town of Bhimber and the villages of Deva and Battala, the town of Rajouri and the whole of the area adjoining Chhamb, Naoshera. Jhangar, a key-place both for Mirpur and Kotli, was lost after a defeat. These defeats have been a heavy blow for us and have also undermined the prestige of the Indian forces. Not a single town has so far been recovered by the Indian troops. The people judge an army from results and not from propaganda carried on about it. On the Kathua-Sialkot border attacks have been intensified. Everyday there is one raid after another. A number of villages have been burnt, people have been looted, women abducted and there have been killings also. The result has been that all the border villages have been vacated and we have about 70,000 to 80,000 refugees in the city of Jammu. Crops, houses and valuables have been lost. Most of the people are also vacating Jammu and its suburbs and are going to West Punjab. The situation, therefore, is worsening everyday.

Name of the Indian Army getting into the mud

"The name of the Indian Army is getting into the mud in spite of its brilliant record. I was a member of the War Cabinet. I travelled in war zones during the Great war. The name of the Indian Army was at its highest pitch and it pains me to see that the name of the Indian Army has become a topic of every tongue during these days and it is daily losing prestige. Some people think that it is not the fault of the Army but the fault of the policy that is being followed: others feel that it is the fault of the commanders who are quite new to the job. People who would have had to wait for 10 to 15 years to become generals have been put in charge of operations. Opinions differ, but the fact is that the name of the Army is in the mud. Sardar Baldev Singh was here for a day. He has heard from our politicians, members of the public and from me and my Prime Minister all that everyone had to say. He told me secretly that he had ordered certain actions to be taken. I told him that a mere order is nothing unless it is implemented. When you kindly spent two days with us here, a number of decisions were taken and you gave instructions in certain matters. Since your departure nothing has been done and, as I have said, we had more serious attacks. The effort on the part of Pakistan is gaining ground everyday. Their morale owing to success is going up. They loot property, they take away cattle and women and when they go back to Pakistan, they incite people and tell them how much loot and what benefits there are to raid our territory. On the other hand, our morale is rapidly going down. So far as the people are concerned, they are thoroughly demoralised and they start fleeing as soon as there is even a rumour of a raid. Even people living at distant places start fleeing when they see fire five or six miles from their villages. So far as the Indian forces are concerned, they do not leave their apportioned places to meet the raiders. There are no mobile columns to meet them. The work is felt to a few Home Guards or to a platoon or so of very tired state forces. How can it be possible for them to engage 500 or 1,000 raiders ? Last time you ordered guerrillas to come into the state and take over this work. As far as I know, no guerrillas have arrived so far...

"In the situation, therefore, my position as Ruler has become very anamolous ant one of great perplexity. People in the State continue sending me telegrams and asking for help. Our civil administration is in the hands of the National Conference and military operations in the hands of the Indian Union. I have no voice or power either on the civil or military side. The State forces are under the Indian Army Commander. The result, therefore, is that I have just to watch the terrible situation in a helpless manner, to look on at the abduction of women, killing and loot of my people, without power to give them any redress whatever. People continue to approach me everyday and they still think that it lies in my power to give them relief and redress. You will realise that my position is getting most awkward every day, so long as the military situation is adverse to us and refugees continue pouring in the city and daily raids from Pakistan keep on coming without any reply from us."

He then went on to say: "Apart from the military situation, the reference to the UNO and the proceedings that are hanging fire there are causing great uncertainty and perplexity not only to me but to every Hindu and Sikh in the State as well as to those who belong to the National Conference. The feeling is strongly gaining ground that the UN Security Council will take an adverse decision and that the State will eventually have to accede to Pakistan as a result of what the Security Council will decide. The Hindus and Sikhs have, therefore, started going away from the State, as they anticipate that the result of the UNO decision will be the same as what happened in West Punjab and therefore it is much better to clear out of the State before that eventuality arises. The National Conference leaders also feel that they may eventually be let down by accepting the decision of the Security Council and what would be disastrous for them.

"My position in this matter is also precarious. You know I definitely acceded to the Indian Union with the idea that the Union will not let us down and the State would remain acceded to the Union and my position and that of my dynasty would remain secure. It was for this reason that I accepted the advice of the Indian Union in the matter of internal administration. If we have to go to Pakistan, it was wholly unnecessary to accede to India or to mould the internal administration according to the desire of the Indian Union. I feel that the internal administration or the question of accession is wholly foreign to the jurisdiction of the Security Council. The Indian Union only referred a limited question to the Security Council, but the whole issue has been enlarged and not only the matter of aggression by one Dominion over the other is being considered by the Security Council but internal questions of the formation of the Interim Government and the matter of accession have all been taken notice of by them. It was a wrong step in going to Security Council and then agreeing to the enlargement of the agenda before that Council. As soon as the Council enlarged the agenda, the Indian Union should have withdrawn the reference and ended the matter.

"In the situation described above, a feeling comes to my mind as to the possible steps that I may take to make, so far as I am concerned, a clean state of the situation. Sometimes I feel that I should withdraw the accession that I have made to the Indian Union. The Union provisionally accepted the accession and if the Union cannot recover back our territory and is going eventually to agree to the decision of the Security Council which would result in handing us over to Pakistan, then there is no point in sticking to the accession of the State to the Indian Union. For the time being, it may be possible to have better terms from Pakistan, but that is immaterial, because eventually it would mean an end of the dynasty and end of the Hindus and Sikhs in the State. There is an alternative possible for me and that is to withdraw the accession and that may kill the reference to the UNO, because the Indian Union will have no right to continue the proceedings before the Council, if the accession is withdrawn. The result may be return to the position the State held before the accession. The difficulty in that situation however, will be that the Indian troops .... have to work as volunteers to help the State. I am prepared to takeover command of my own forces along with the forces of the Indian Army personally to help the State. I am prepared to lead the Army personally and to command if the Indian Union agrees, also their troops. I know my country much better than any of your generals will know it even during the next several months or years and I am prepared to take the venture boldly rather than merely keep on sitting here doing nothing. It is for you to consider whether the Indian Union will accept this in both the situations, whether after the withdrawal of the accession or even if the accession continues. I am tired of my present life and it is much better to die fighting than watch helplessly the heartbreaking misery of my people.

"Another alternative that strikes me is that if I can do nothing, I should leave the State (short of abdication) and reside outside so that people do not think that I can do anything for them. For their grievances they can hold the civil administration responsible or the Indian forces who are in charge of the defence of the State. The responsibility will then clearly be either the Indian Union or of the administration of Sheikh Abdullah. If there is any criticism, those responsible can have it and the responsibility for the suffering of the people will not be mine. Of course, I well anticipate that, as people started saying when I left Kashmir only on Mr. Menon's advice, that I had run away from Srinagar, they will say that I have left them in their hour of misery, but it is no use remaining in a position where one can do nothing merely to avoid criticism. Of course, if I go out of the State, I will have to take the public into confidence and tell them the reasons why I am going out.

"The third alternative in the situation that has arisen is that the Indian Dominion discharges its duty on the military side effectively and makes an all-out effort to stop the raids from Pakistan and to drive out of the State not only the raiders but also all rebels. This can only be done if the Dominion really fights. It has avoided fighting so far. Two or three courageous battles will more or less end this situation, and, if it is delayed, there is bound to be a catastrophe. Pakistan is more organised against Kashmir than the Indian Dominion, and as soon as snow melts it will start attacking Kashmir on all sides and the province of Ladakh will also come into the hands of the enemy and the Valley and the whole border will be raided and even double the number of troops at present in Jammu and Kashmir will not be able to save the situation. What should have been done and achieved a month before can still be achieved during the next month, but if matters are delayed and if owing to the UNO reference and the attitude of compromise, the situation remains at a standstill, it would become terribly grave after the expiry of the month. Therefore, unless the Indian Union makes up its mind to fight fully and effectively, I may have to decide upon the two alternatives mentioned above.

Sardar Patel's Advice

To this letter Sardar Patel replied on February 9, 1948, and said in the course of his reply: "I fully realise what an anxious time you must be having. I can assure you that I am no less anxious about the Kashmir situation and what is happening in the UNO, but whatever the present situation may be, counsel of despair is entirely out of place."

Reproduced from: 
Converted Kashmir - Memorial of Mistakes 
A Bitter Saga of Religious Conversion 
Author: Narender Sehgal 
Utpal Publications, 1994

Agreement between Military Representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the Establishment of a Ceasefire Line in the State of Jammu and Kashmir

29 July, 1949


A. The military representatives of India and Pakistan met together in Karachi from 18 July to 27 July l949 under the auspices of the Truce Sub-Committee of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

B. The members of the Indian delegation were: Lieutenant- General S.M.Field Marshal ManekshawShrinagesh, Major-General K.S Thimayya, Brigadier S.H.F.J. Manekshaw. As observers: Mr. H.M. Patel, Mr. V. Sahay.

C. The members of the Pakistan delegation were: Major-General W.J. Cawthorn, Major-General Nazir Ahmed, Brigadier M. Sher Khan. As observers: Mr. M. Ayub, Mr. A. A. Khan.

D. The members of the Truce Sub-Committee of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan were: Mr. Hernando Samper (Colombia), Chairman; Mr. William L.S. Williams (United States); Lieutenant-General Maurice Delvoie, Military Adviser, Mr. Miguel A. Marin, Legal Adviser.


A. Considering:

1. That the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, in its letter dated 2 July, 1949, invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to send fully authorised military representatives to meet jointly in Karachi under the auspices of the Commission's Truce Sub-Committee to establish a cease-fire line in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, mutually agreed upon by the governments of India and Pakistan;

2. That the United Nationals Commission for India and Pakistan in its letter stated that "The meeting will be for military purposes; political issues will not be considered," and that "They will be conducted without prejudice to negotiations concerning the truce agreement";

3. That in the same letter the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan further stated that "The cease-fire line is a complement of the suspension of hostilities, which falls within the provisions of Part I of the resolution of 13 August, 1948 and can be considered separately from the questions relating to Part II of the same resolution";

4. That the governments of India and Pakistan, in their letters dated 7 July, 1949, to the Chairman of the Commission, accepted the Commission's invitation to the military conference in Karachi.

B. The delegations of India and Pakistan, duly authorised, have reached the following agreement:

1. Under the provision of Part I of the resolution of 13 August, 1948, and as a complement of the suspension of hostilities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 1 January, 1949, a cease-fire line is established.

2. The cease-fire line runs from Manawar in the south, north to Keran and from Keran east to the glacier area, as follows:

(a) The line from Manawar to the south bank of Jhelurn River at Urusa (inclusive to India) is the line now defined by the factual positions about which there is agreement between both parties. Where there has hitherto not been agreement, the line shall be as follows:

(i) in the Patrana area: Kohel (inclusive to Pakistan) north along the Khuwala Kas Nullah up to Point 2276 (inclusive to India), thence to Kirni (inclusive to India). 
(ii) Khambha, Pir Satwan, Point 3150 and Point 3606 are inclusive to India, thence the line runs to the factual position at Bagla Gala, thence to the factual position at Point 3300. 
(iii) In the area south of Uri the positions of Pir Kanthi and Ledi Gali are inclusive to Pakistan.

(b) From the north bank of the Jhelum River the line runs from a point opposite the village of Urusa (NL 972109), thence north following the Ballaseth Da Nar Nullah (inclusive to Pakistan), up to NL 973140, thence north-east to Chhota Qazinag (Point 10657 inclusive to India), thence to NM 010180, thence to NM 037210, thence to Point 11825 (NM 025354, inclusive to Pakistan), thence to Tutrnari Gali (to be shared by both sides, posts to be established 500 yards on either side of the Gali), thence to the north-west through the first "R" of Burji Nar to north of Gadori, thence straight west to just north of point 9870, thence along the black line north of Bijidhar to north of Batarasi, thence to just south of Sudhpura, thence due north to the Kathaqazinag Nullah, thence along the Nullah to its junction with the Grangnar Nullah, thence along the latter Nullah to Kajnwala Pathra (inclusive to India), thence across the Danna ridge (following the factual positions) to Richmar Gali (inclusive to India), thence north to Thanda Katha Nullah, thence north to the Kishansanga River. The line then follows the Kishanganga River up to a point situated between Fargi and Tarban, thence (all inclusive to Pakistan) to Bankoran. thence north-east to Khori, thence to the hill feature 8930 (in Square 9053), thence straight north to Point 10164 (in Square 9057), thence to Point 10323 (in Square 9161), thence north east straight to Guthur, then to Bhutpathra, thence to NL 980707, thence following the Bugina Nullah to the junction with the Kishanganga River at Point 4739. Thereafter the line follows the Kishanganga River to Keran and onwards to Point 4996 (NL 975818).

(c) From Point 4996 the line follows (all inclusive to Pakistan) the Famgar Nullah eastward to Point 12124, to Katware, to Point 6678. then to the north-east to Sarian (Point 11279), to Point 11837, to Point 13090 to Point 12641, thence east again to Point 11142, thence to Dhakki, thence to Poin: 11415, thence to Point 10301, thence to Point 7507, thence to Point 10685, thence to Point 8388, thence south-east to Point 11812. Thence the line runs (all inclusive to India), to Point 13220, thence across the river to the east to Point 13449 (Durmat), thence to Point 14586 (Anzbari), thence to Point 13554, thence to Milestone 45 on the Burzil Nullah, thence to the east to Ziankal (Point 12909), thence to the south-east to Point 11114, thence to Point 12216, thence to Point 12867, thence to the east to Point 11264, thence to Karo (Point 14985), thence to Point 14014, thence to Point 12089, thence following the track to Point 12879. From there the line runs to Point 13647 (Karobal Gali, to be shared by both sides). The cease-fire line runs thence through Retagah Chhish (Point 15316), thence through Point 15889, thence through Point 17392, thence through Point 16458, thence to Marpo La (to be shared by both sides), thence through Point 17561, thence through Point 17352, thence through Point 18400, thence through Point 16760, thence to (inclusive to India) Dalunang.

(d) From Dalunang eastwards the cease-fire line will follow the general line point 15495, Ishman, Manus, Gangam, Gunderman, Point 13620, Funkar (Point 17628), Marmak, Natsara, Shangruti (Point 1,531), Chorbat La (Point 16700), Chalunka (on the Shyok River), Khor, thence north to the glaciers. This portion of the cease- fire line shall be demarcated in detail on the basis of the factual position as of 27 July, 1949, by the local commanders assisted by United Nations military observers.

C. The cease-fire line described above shall be drawn on a one- inch map (where available) and then be verified mutually on the ground by local commanders on each side with the assistance of the United Nations military observers, so as to eliminate any no-man's land. In the event that the local commanders are unable to reach agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Commission's Military Adviser, whose decision shall be final. After this verification,

Done in Karachi on 27 July, 1949

For the Government of India: 
S. M. Shrinagesh

For the Government of Pakistan: 
J. Cawthorn 

For the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan: 
Hernando Samper 
M. Delvoie

Article 370 of Indian Constitution

Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,

(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to,

(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Govermnent of the State are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws far that State; and

(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.


Explanation For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March. 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:

Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:

Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may. by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:

Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 370 the President, on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that as from the 17th Day of November, 1952, the said Article 370 shall be operative with the modification that for the Explanation in Cl. (1) thereof, the following explanation is substituted namely.

"Explanation - For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office." 
(Ministry of Law order No. C. O. dated 15th Nov. 1952.)

Tashkent Declaration

Lal Bahadur Shastri 
Lal Bahadur Shastri 

The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan, having met at Tashkent and having discussed the existing relations between India and Pakistan hereby declare their firm resolve to restore normal and peaceful relations between their countries and to promote understanding and friendly relations between their peoples. They consider the attainment of these objectives of vital importance for the welfare of the 600 million people of India and Pakistan.

(i) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighborly relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter. They reaffirm their obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means. They considered that the interests of peace in their region and particularly in the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent and indeed, the interests of the peoples of India ad Pakistan were not served by the continuance of tension between the two countries. It was against this background that Jammu & Kashmir was discussed, and each of the sides set forth its respective position.

Troops Withdrawal

(ii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that all armed personnel of the two countries shall be withdrawn not later than 25 February 1966 to the positions they held prior to 5 August 1965, and both sides shall observe the cease-fire terms on the cease-fire line.

(iii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.

(iv) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that both sides will discourage any propaganda directed against the other country and will encourage propaganda which promotes the development of friendly relations between the two countries.

(v) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the High Commissioner of India to Pakistan and the High Commissioner of Pakistan of India will return to their posts and that the normal functioning of diplomatic missions of both countries will be restored. Both Governments shall observe the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic Intercourse.

Trade Relations

(vi) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed to consider measures towards the restoration of economic and trade relations, communications as well as cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan, and to take measures to implement the existing agreement between India and Pakistan.

(vii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that they will give instructions to their respective authorities to carry out the repatriation of the prisoners of war.

(viii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the two sides will continue the discussions of questions relating to the problems of refugees and eviction of illegal immigrations. They also agreed that both sides will create conditions which will prevent the exodus of people. They further agree to discuss the return of the property and assets taken over by either side in connection with the conflict.

Soviet Leaders Thanked

(ix) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the two sides will continue meetings both at highest and at other levels of matters of direct concern to both countries. Both sides have recognized the need to set up joint Indian-Pakistani bodies which will report to their Governments in order to decide what further steps should be taken.

(x) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan record their feelings, deep appreciation and gratitude to the leaders of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government and personally to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for their constructive, friendly and noble part in bringing about the present meeting which has resulted in mutually satisfactory results. They also express to the Government and friendly people of Uzbekistan their sincere thankfulness for their overwhelming reception and generous hospitality.

They invite the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR to witness this declaration. 

Kashmir Accord

Indira Gandhi 
Indira Gandhi 
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah 
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah

Agreed conclusions which led to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's accord with Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister, and his subsequent assumption of office as Chief Minister in February 1975:

1 . The State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India, shall, in its relation with the Union, continue to be governed by Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

2. The residuary powers of legislation shall remain with the State; however, Parliament will continue to have power to make laws relating to the prevention of activities directed towards disclaiming, questioning or disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or bringing about secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union or causing insult to the Indian National Flag, the Indian National Anthem and the Constitution.

3. Where any provision of the Constitution of India had been applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir with adaptations and modifications, such adaptations and modifications can be altered or repealed by an order of the President under Article 370, each individual proposal in this behalf being considered on its merits; but provisions of the Constitution of India already applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir without adaptation or modification are unalterable.

4. With a view to assuring freedom to the State of Jammu and Kashmir to have its own legislation on matters like welfare measures cultural matters, social security, personal law and procedural laws, in a manner suited to the special conditions in the State, it is agreed that the State Government can review the laws made by Parliament or extended to the State after 1953 on any matter relatable to the Concurrent List and may decide which of them, in its opinion, needs amendment or repeal. Thereafter, appropriate steps may be taken under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The grant of President's assent to such legislation would be sympathetically considered. The same approach would be adopted in regard to laws to be made by Parliament in future under the Proviso to clause 2 of the Article. The State Government shall be consulted regarding the application of any such law to the State and the views of the State Government shall receive the fullest consideration

5. As an arrangement reciprocal to what has been provided under Article 368, a suitable modification of that Article as applied to the State should be made by Presidential order to the effect that no law made by the Legislature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking to make any change in or in the effect of any provision of Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir relating to any of he under mentioned matters, shall take effect unless the Bill, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, receives his assent; the matters are:

(a) the appointment, powers, functions, duties, privileges and immunities of the Governor, and

(b) the following matters relating to Elections namely, the superintendence, direction and control of Elections by the Election Commission of India, eligibility for inclusion in the electoral rolls without discrimination, adult suffrage and composition of the legislative Council, being matters specified in sections 138, 139 140 and 50 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

6. No agreement was possible on the question of nomenclature of the Governor and the Chief Minister and the matter is therefore, remitted to the Principals.

Parliament Resolution

"This House"

On behalf of the People of India,

note with deep concern Pakistan's role in imparting training to the terrorists in camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the supply of weapons and funds, assistance in infiltration of trained militants, including foreign mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir with the avowed purpose of creating disorder, disharmony and subversion:

reiterates that the militants trained in Pakistan are indulging in murder, loot and other heinous crimes against the people, taking them hostage and creating an atmosphere of terror;

Condemns strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir;

Calls upon Pakistan to stop forthwith its support to terrorism, which is in violation of the Simla Agreement and the internationally accepted norms of inter-State conduct and is the root cause of tension between the two countries reiterates that the Indian political and democratic structures and the Constitution provide for firm guarantees for the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens;

regard Pakistan's anti-India campaign of calumny and falsehood as unacceptable and deplorable.

notes with deep concern the highly provocative statements emanating from Pakistan urges Pakistan to refrain from making statements which vitiate the atmosphere and incite public opinion;

expresses regret and concern at the pitiable conditions and violations of human rights and denial of democratic freedoms of the people in those areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which are under the illegal occupation of Pakistan;

Firmly declares that-

and demands that -

(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;

(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;

(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -

(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely."

The Resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Speaker: The Resolution is unanimously passed.

February 22, 1994

Shiv Narain Fotedar Replies Maulana Masoodi

Below is the text of the speech delivered by late Sh. S.N. Fotedar on the floor of the Parliament on 17 September, 1953, while participating in the debate on Foreign Affairs, with particular reference to Kashmir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact I had no idea to participate in theMasoodidebate on the foreign policy of India. But the time I came, I found my learned friend, Maulana Masoodi, saying certain things on Kashmir. I feel that a stage has come, when it is no use beating about the bush, and keeping things up your sleeves, when the fate of great empires and countries is involved on the issue of Kashmir. With all the reverence that I have for my friend, Maulana Sahib, against whom I stand up today not in a spirit of animosity but only with the idea of clearing certain points which he has put in a manner, which is bound to create a certain amount of confusion and suspicion.

No doubt, the activities of certain organisations here in India and in the Jammu Province did influence the opinion of the people in Kashmir, but to place outright the responsibility of a certain idea which may have been sedulously gaining ground in the mind of Sheikh Sahib himself, since a long time on them, is not correct.

So far as the question of independence is concerned, I think it is not quite a fresh idea or a recent development in Sheikh Sahib so far as I know. I belong to Kashmir and Kashmir, I always feel and I do feel even today, is an integral part of India. As such, I can speak things in an authoritative manner when compared to many other friends here, who do not belong to Kashmir.

So far back as 1948, Sheikh Sahib did raise a slogan of independence. It was not in the year 1953, it was in the year 1948 that he took into confidence certain foreign press correspondents and told them that independence was the only solution for Kashmir. At that time, Sardar Patel was living and Sheikh Abdullah was summoned over here. Then, my friends may be remembering, he said that he was thinking aloud. This was the time when Mr Loy Henderson was in Kashmir along with his wife. In the year 1952 when the Ranbirsinghpura speech was made by Sheikh Sahib, there was no Jan Sangh, at that time there were no activities by the Praja Praishad, much less of the Jan Sangh against Kashmir government. Yet there was that much-maligned statement made at a public meeting which was covered by the Press Trust of India and subsequently by other papers and about which even the idol of the people, the great leader of the country, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, had to speak in a public meeting that he was not feeling happy. Then also the working of Sheikh Abdullah’s mind regarding the future political status of Kashmir was quite visible and could not escape detection.

I do not belong to the Working Committee of the National Conference, but I do know things and learn things from the members of the Working Committee. On that authority, as also on what I have learnt directly from Sheikh Sahib on the eve of my departure from Kashmir to attend the present session of the Parliament, I lay this before the House for information and guidance. I had a long talk with him about Kashmir for about two and a half hours and finally he told me that there was no solution for the Kashmir question, except independence, that those parts of Jammu which are inhabited mostly by Hindus, and Ladakh, should go to India and the parts held by Pakistan at the present moment should remain with Pakistan, the rest to be converted, after the wreckage of the state into an independent territory, to be recognised both by India and Pakistan. Not only that, he said that since both these countries were getting a slice, both should subsidise what remained of the State--the independent Kashmir valley--so that we could develop Kashmir from within.

Well, this was the talk I had with him. I don’t suppose I have much time at my disposal to describe enti-narrative here, although it is very much necessary. The idea of independence was gaining ground in the mind of Sheikh Abdullah since a long long time. And here my friend, Maulana Sahib--with all deference to him--said that it was the Jan Sangh, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Praja Parishad which influenced the decision of Sheikh Sahib. I do not absolve them of their share of responsibility, but all the same, I feel, and I say it with a sense of responsibility, that such events alone did not constitute any basic reason in Sheikh Sahib’s mind to drift into the channel of independence.

In fact, the Jan Sangh, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Praja Parishad do not form India and Sheikh Abdullah had no reason to mount the stage and condemn the whole of the Indian nation and the Indian Republic, to speak things against the whole of India and to compare Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru with Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee. (Cries of ‘shame’, ‘shame’ from all benches).

He said in the Working Committee and the workers meeting that there was no difference between Pandit Nehru and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee. This was an unkindest cut and the height of ingratitude. That was the state of affairs in the workers’ meeting, where I heard him speaking things against India and the people, and also the workers being roused against India.

I used to put this question to myself after all what has India done to deserve this denunciation? Did India go as an aggressor to Kashmir? India came to Kashmir when Pakistan was the aggressor. India on the invitation of the people came to defend the independence, the life and property and chastity of womanhood in Kashmir against Pakistan aggression. Did he (Sheikh Abdullah) not say, that there was no power on earth which can separate Kashmir from India and that independence was impolitic and inappreciable? Therefore, what has India done? India never interfered. The greatest charge I can lay at the door of India today is that India never cared to interfere with the internal Administration of Kashmir. (Cheers from opposition benches). India said that she had gone there at the invitation of the people and if the people asked India to leave Kashmir, India would not take even a single minute to leave the country.

The second thing is this. Here my friend said that no decision was taken. But, is it not a fact that after having found himself in a minority in the Working Committee, in the administration and the Cabinet, as also in the Constituent Assembly, Sheikh Abdullah rushed on to the stage? Was it not negation of democracy, and political tyranny, to talk to the people that things cannot be decided in closed room? He called the Working Committee a closed room; he called his own cabinet a closed room; cabinet members are the chosen representatives of the people. Cabinet members were selected from among the members of the Constituent Assembly, which Sheikh Abdullah always termed as the sovereign authority of the land. Was it a room? If that is a room, then I think our Parliament is also a room. For everypurpose then we shall have to run to 36 crores of people. He said all these things, I think, to divert the attention of the masses from acute economic distress and maladministration in the country.

I felt sad and surprised to see that the great leader of the country for whom I have great reverence, should have degenerated into communal channels and repudiated the time-honoured stand of the National Conference of which he was the Head. Perhaps the idea was to help and strengthen certain elements in Pakistan and in foreign countries, while negotiations regarding the future of Kashmir were going on. I am not concerned with all that at the present moment. My friend Maulana Sahib said about himself that he was against Pakistan and the idea of independence. I know it very well as he used to talk to me then, while he was leading a sort of a movement against Sheikh Abdullah’s misconceived stand within the ranks of the National Conference. He was a leader of a movement which was bound to bring about the downfall and the collapse of Sheikh Abdullah’s undemocratic and dictatorial edifice. When the edifice has fallen, he was responsible for all this and now he should not have any reason to feel unhappy over It, I donot want to take the time of the House. I want to say only this thing, Sir, that it is really unhappy that such things should have happened in Kashmir. But, I may say that the leadership which has come to power with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed at its head did not save only Kashmir from disaster, it saved the whole of Pakistan and the whole of the republic of India from a great disaster which would have overtaken them. (Cheers from all benches). So, I feel that we should really be grateful to that leadership and also Maulana Sahib for taking an authoritative stand against Sheikh Abdullah’s stand--stand rejected by the National Conference times without number.

Now, it is said that we should understand something about the actual and basic position. There cannot be one person in the world who can influence the decision of the teeming millions. It is the age-long ideology of the people and an organisation which counts. In the year 1947, it was not one person or a coterie of friends, but, in fact, the entire mass of the Kashmiris who wanted to go to India and not to Pakistan and who influenced by their time-honoured political professions and faith fought Pakistan raiders. It is not correct to say that only one person or a coterie of people can deliver the goods. That will be to reduce the people to automatons, to make them something like machines in the present age of democracy. Then the question of ascertaining the will of the people becomes a sinning mockery. I say that in the year 1947, there was no doubt, that Sheikh Sahib and his friends, the Maulana Sahib, Bakshi Sahib and others did a very great thing in the history of Kashmir.

At the present moment, to say that because the Jan Sangh, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Praja Parishad indulged in communal activities, therefore, such a thing happened, is not correct. Are Jan Sangh and the Hindu Mahashaba the whole of India? India consists of 36 crores of people. If Sheikh Abdullah was responsible before 30 lakhs of people, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and his government are responsible before 36 crores of people. Did not this Government of India endorse the activities of the Kashmir government unreservedly, when the movement was going on in Jammu? Did not Panditji say that it was a most mischievous and pernicious movement? Did he not say that if he would have been there as the Head of Administration he would have taken sterner measures against this mischievous and pernicious movement? Did not the Government of India and the Indian Parliament and the whole Congress back Sheikh Abdullah for five years? Is it not manufacturing an excuse now, for the realisation of some sinister objective, to say that the Jan Sangh and Praja Parishad did certain things and all these things happened, and therefore a volte-face.

My friend Maulana Sahib said that a Commission of Enquiry should be appointed to enquire into the recent happenings in Kashmir. Maulana Sahib is the General Secretary of the National Conference. It is the National Conference government that is functioning in Kashmir. Why does he not ask his own government, his own party to do that? If at all there is any truth in the stories of atrocities. I feel that besides what is being said, many things must have happened because it was a tremendous upheaval--all the same the astounding things said in the Pakistan press and in the foreign press are only to cater to their own nefarious political ends. I think these are all mendacious inventions which deserve not even the dignity of a formal denial. The people of Kashmir want good government which was denied to them all these six years. On matters pertaining to the future political set-up of Kashmir, they have energetically expressed themselves in 1947, against odds, danger to life and religious appeal, while fighting Pakistan aggression.

Powered by Company Name Company Name